Disclosure of Surveys in California

I'm not sure that filing a record of survey would disclose business plans for development of a property - it just indicates a survey of the boundary.

As a practical matter, filing with the County Surveyor for review needs to take place within 90 days from the date of survey, and review and filing would take some time beyond that.?ÿ Public disclosure of the survey wouldn't be an issue for quite a few months.?ÿ Perusing filed records of survey maps isn't commonplace, so the RS isn't likely to alert potential buyers of a given property any more than a For Sale sign in front of the property.

Posted by: Warren Smith

I'm not sure that filing a record of survey would disclose business plans for development of a property - it just indicates a survey of the boundary.

Some surveys list the name for whom the survey was done, and that could eventually tip other potential buyers off.?ÿ I don't know if that's a requirement there or anywhere, but if it can be left off it might make the client happier.

I agree with Bill93.?ÿ If allowed, use the seller's name or just the property address in the title block.

I would suggest that "Large Corporation XYZ" should figure out how to be a developer first.?ÿ If they're truly interested in this "Property A", they should go under contract with the seller and lock it down for whatever due diligence period they can negotiate with the seller.?ÿ In my world this is usually the amount of time it takes to entitle the property through the controlling jurisdiction and get approved construction documents.?ÿ Then they close on the property transaction and move directly into construction.?ÿ If they have a purchase sale contract in place it doesn't matter if someone gets wind of the deal although regardless of size, nearly every developer I've worked with has created a separate land holding company to put title of the property into which would take some digging for someone to discover the parent of.?ÿ Unless you're talking about Amazon's new HQ2 site no one is looking that hard and if the right approach is taken, a survey being recorded is the last place someone will discover what's up.

Large Corporation "A" is not the land owner, therefore that law does not apply to them. Being that the survey is most likely out of your hands if and when they become the landowner the law may still not apply, to them, but you may be on the hook for the filing at that time. Some sound legal analysis should be obtained.?ÿ

Paul in PA

The statute in California obligates the Land Surveyor to file the survey, not the property owner.

The statutory Land Surveyors Statement includes who requested the survey.

The Corporation should have the land owner request the survey. Reimburse the owner as part of an option agreement.  Problem solved.

The owner should be happy to do this, as then they have a survey to show any other potential buyer if this deal falls through.

Too much handwaving. This is why ALTA surveys were invented. No corners set and nothing recorded. Nobody's business except the client, who may not have an interest in the land but needs a survey to inform their business decisions. Corners may be set after purchase and a boundary survey recorded, maybe all from the same field data, maybe not.

HUD requires developers to file future development plans in public records, so they are not going to be able to hide forever.

The statutory Land Surveyors Statement includes who requested the survey.

Technically, it's the person who authorized the survey.  I sometimes use my company name for this -- mostly for situations in which the client didn't want to pay for a ROS -- and have only gotten pushback once or twice.  However, in the event that a corporate client wanted to avoid advertising its interest, one could use the name of the individual corporate contact and be in full compliance.

But as others have said, this is of little practical import when it comes to disguising (or not disguising) interest in a property.  Pretty much nobody reads ROS statements, and there are more fruitful avenues of investigation available.

"Recently I've been told by several land surveyors that if a property owner wants to have a survey of a property in Calif. performed by a licensed surveyor that the survey must be filed with the County Recorder and that survey then becomes public record. "

Not necessarily so; in addition to surveys performed?ÿ by public officers a Record of Survey is not required if [Section 8765]?ÿ "(d) When the survey is a retracement of lines shown on a subdivision map, official map, or a record of survey, where no material discrepancies with those records are found and sufficient monumentation is found to establish the precise location of property corners thereon, provided that a corner record is filed for any property corners which are set or reset or found to be of a different character than indicated by prior records. For purposes of this subdivision, ƒ??material discrepancyƒ? is limited to a material discrepancy in the position of points or lines, or in dimensions. "?ÿ

It's surprising how often that is the case, especially concerning commercial property.

I would think that a survey is only public record if it is used for transfer of title.

Do you have to record everything regardless of why it was surveyed?

Posted by: Steven Metelski

I would think that a survey is only public record if it is used for transfer of title.

Do you have to record everything regardless of why it was surveyed?

Sounds like California doesn't care WHY it was surveyed or what was done after the survey. The same is true of many states, with variations in what the thresholds are.

California has three types of record maps (technically they are filed, not recorded because the Recorder keeps the original), Final Maps (Subdivision Plat generally in the north or Tract Map generally in the south), Parcel Maps (sometimes Minor Subdivision) and Record of Survey map.

The Record of Survey almost never puts the world on constructive notice, the other two are signed by the owner so they do. None of them are an Official Survey per common law opinions in this state. I don't want to say never because there could possibly be one or two out there that meet the requirements, executed in some way by the owner and indexed. Land Surveyors are expected to find them in the records, of course, but as to title matters the Record of Survey has no effect. If someone happens to have a copy of the map then they would have actual notice of it.

They are public record.

Not true if, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=8762.

Jp