Ethics and Professionalism in Surveying

>
> 3. Does a boundary agreement nullify the significance of monuments?
>
be careful,in some states, a boundary agreement cannot be made if there are monuments. what was that called? recognition and acquiescence, i believe. to draft a boundary agreement, the markers must be obliterated

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Two adjoining property owners should have the right to agree on a common line, regardless of the existing monumentation. Maybe the state statutes won't allow the agreement to be called a "boundary line agreement" but you'd have a hard time convincing me it is illegal under another name.

it doesn't make sense to me either. it is the product of my studies for the p and p. i will look up a reference.

i'm not finding it today, based on what books i do have. it had something to do with the necessity for a complete lack of knowledge of a line. hope that makes a little more sense.

they can always exchange quitclaim deeds to a line shown on a plan, no?

Land rights are usually transferred by writings and there is good reason for that as there is good reason to maintain the credibility of Deed Descriptions. Monuments defining ownership rights and the owners wish to move the established line, then exchange deed documents so the deed descriptions match occupation. Makes good sense to me, in this case the ownership has been located and referenced by monuments, it needs to remain stable until it gets changed by some legal action of the owners.
jud

> I am a Surveying Engineering student at NMSU Las Cruces and would like some input I can use for a project research paper. I am not asking for too much of your time, but if you could pick one of the topics below and give your take on the issue it would be greatly appreciated.
>
> 1) What are a surveyor’s ethical responsibilities in accepting an existing survey
> monument as a property corner?
>
> 2) What are a surveyor’s ethical responsibilities in dealing with a “pincushion”
> corner (e.g. where a single property corner is represented by multiple
> monuments).
>
> 3) What are a surveyor’s ethical responsibilities in dealing with the potential
> destruction of survey monuments by a client or a contractor working for the
> client?
>
> In ALL THREE scenarios consider the following possibilities.
>
> 1. What are the affects of removing/destroying a survey monument?
>
> 2. Does a court order nullify the significance of monuments?
>
> 3. Does a boundary agreement nullify the significance of monuments?
>
> 4. What are the surveyor’s responsibilities in preserving / perpetuating
> monuments?

Well, you don't ask for much!!!

Here is a sideswipe at all the above.
There are times that a surveyor is NOT privy to the actual history of all the monuments he may find. Sometimes he can document WHERE monuments are, and how well they fit a given description, and or the adjoiners description. But the actual history is lost to folks from another time.

Thus, he has to work with LIMITED and sometimes conflicting evidence, and testimony. Sometimes it is a significant difference, and sometimes not. So, he winds up preparing a plat to scale, with all that was found, and or set, and all that he was able to ascertain. But, the FINAL answer has got to come AFTER everybody has had a chance to review it.
THEN the surveyor finalizes.
N

> i'm not finding it today, based on what books i do have. it had something to do with the necessity for a complete lack of knowledge of a line. hope that makes a little more sense.
The word you're looking for is "uncertainty." Some states require "objective uncertainty" while most states are fine with "subjective uncertainty." Either way, we're confronted here with multiple conflicting survey markers (they're not monuments until they mark the corner) all claiming to represent the corner location. That's a situation which fulfills uncertainty on its face, both objectively and subjectively.

The landowners, when confronted with multiple monuments have the right to choose which ones to use in order to settle uncertainty or dispute which arises. They may enter into an agreement to settle the uncertainty, thereby resolving the location of the boundary and establishing its location.

JBS

With respect to 4.

If you're seeking an interesting subject dealing with ethics and professionalism in surveying, perhaps you could explore the conflicting interests between surveying as a competitive business, the need for surveyors to maintain control of their data and make a profit and the need for comprehensive records to be made to assist future surveyors in following in their footsteps.

It's a peeve of mine when some surveyors will monument or reestablish a lost or obliterated corner or some other position and if/when they do record a plat or record of survey, they may well not show how they arrived at the position because to give that information away by making it public, might give away their competitive advantage as well as potentially opening them up to the questioning of their proceedures.

Does that make any sense? Just a suggestion of subject matter. Good luck!;-)

In New Hampshire
TITLE XLVII
BOUNDARIES, FENCES AND COMMON FIELDS
CHAPTER 472
BOUNDARY LINES

"472:1 Disputed Boundary. – Whenever the boundary line between the land or estates of adjoining owners is in dispute, and the location of the same as described in the deeds of said owners or of their predecessors in title cannot be determined by the monuments and boundaries named in any of said deeds, the parties may establish said line by agreement in the following manner, and not otherwise.

472:3 Survey; Monuments. – The line agreed upon shall be surveyed and established by courses and distances, and suitable and permanent monuments shall be placed at each end and at each angle of the boundary so agreed upon.

472:4 Agreement in Writing. – A writing, reciting that the parties signing the same are adjoining owners, that the division line between their lands is in dispute, that the line described in their respective deeds or in the deeds of any of their predecessors in title cannot be located on the ground by reason of the loss or obliteration of the monuments and boundaries therein named and described, and containing a full and complete description of the line thus agreed upon and established, and the volume and page where their said respective deeds are recorded, or if title was not acquired by deed, a statement identifying each owner's other source of title, shall be signed and acknowledged by the parties to the agreement before any officer having authority to take the acknowledgment of deeds, and recorded with the registry of deeds for the county where the lands are located, and, when the volume and page of an owner's deed is set forth in said agreement, the register of deeds shall note the recording of said agreement on the margin where the said respective deeds of the parties to said agreement are recorded. In those registries recording on microfilm, in lieu of noting the recording of said agreement on the margin where the respective deeds of the parties to said agreement are recorded, the register of deeds shall list all parties to the agreement in both the grantor and grantee indices."

Great statute. Wish we had one similar but are left to the confines of common law which allows oral agreements.

The only potential issue that I see is that the statute prohibits landowners from settling their boundary where they can't afford to have it surveyed. BLA's should be inexpensive to retain their effectiveness. The statute still allows the most effective way at the cheapest possible method of surveying, but it still prohibits the owners from simply entering an owners' affidavit recognizing a boundary.

JBS

Much better statute than we have in New Jersey:

46:3A-5. Certificate acknowledging line, corners and boundaries; recording; evidence; notice
A certificate, executed by the owners of adjoining lands, certifying that any line, corners and boundaries are allowed and acknowledged by them to be the true boundary between their lands, shall be as fully conclusive and binding as to the parties thereto, their heirs, successors and assigns as though such boundary had been fixed by them by deed or otherwise, and any such certificate, when duly acknowledged or proved, may be recorded in the office of the county clerk or register of deeds and mortgages, as the case may be, of the county in which such lands lie, and, when so recorded, the record thereof shall be receivable in evidence and shall be notice in the same manner and to the same effect as though their respective deeds had been so acknowledged or proved and recorded.

> That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Two adjoining property owners should have the right to agree on a common line, regardless of the existing monumentation. Maybe the state statutes won't allow the agreement to be called a "boundary line agreement" but you'd have a hard time convincing me it is illegal under another name.

Some areas around here you have to have city or agency approval to adjust platted lot lines. Approval is typically in the form of a formal review of the record of survey showing the existing and soon-to-be new lot lines. Anything else simply won't work.

If there are monuments, then the line would appear to have been located with some certainty. Boundary Line Agreement cannot be used to ignore the established line.

However, a Boundary Line Adjustment, in which the parties agree to move the boundary to a different location other than where it exists, can usually be done.

If the line is certain or can reasonably be made certain, then agreeing to a different line or an arbitrary line location made not as an attempt to place the described line on the ground is a transfer of property.

If the line is not certain and cannot be made certain by a reasonable effort, then the perties can agree to define the line on the ground and agree that the line so established is the boundary intended by the deed descriptions already on record. No transfer of property, merely giving certainty to the uncertain.

> 1) What are a surveyor’s ethical responsibilities in accepting an existing survey
> monument as a property corner?

The surveyor must gain as complete an understanding as possible of the establishment of such a monument, the recognition of it by the affected landowners, and the history of any other attempts to have marked the line or corner so momnumented. Monuments should neither be accepted simply because another surveyor set it, nor rejected out of hand simply because no monument is expressly called for in the deeds or because the found monument does not precisely fit with one's measurements and calculations.

All that being said, my 30+ years of experience has found that it is best to presume the monument marks a valid establishment of the point it is intended to mark, and then reject it only when you find that it is not valid. How to determine if it's valid is a subject that goes well beyond the scope of these questions.

>
> 2) What are a surveyor’s ethical responsibilities in dealing with a “pincushion”
> corner (e.g. where a single property corner is represented by multiple
> monuments).

As a continuation of my answer to the previous question, the chances that one of the monuments present was a valid establishment of the point it intended to mark is pretty high. If you have a pincushion, one of those points is going to be the oldest. Much of the time, assuming there are records of the surveys these points were set by, you will find that the oldest survey was a valid establishment in that the surveyor followed acceptable procedure and made measurements to the precision and accuracy reasonably expected under the conditions and for the era in which the survey was made.

You will also usually find that all of the subsequent surveys made either rejected the points of the previous survey because they did not fall precisely at the calculated positions of the later surveys - a result of the subsequent surveyor not having reasonable expectations of error tolerances and not considering the full set of evidence available to him -, or maybe the subsequent surveyor completely missed that the first point even existed because he did not look carefully enough.

Whatever led to the pincushion, by gaining as complete an understanding as possible of the history of each monument in the pincushion, you should be able to make a well-reasoned conclusion as to which was the first valid establishment of the point.

Almost always the worst thing to do is to add to the confusion by creating yet another point.

>
> 3) What are a surveyor’s ethical responsibilities in dealing with the potential
> destruction of survey monuments by a client or a contractor working for the
> client?

There is little the surveyor can do to control the actions of others. Often, contractors will be careless, and sometimes landowners will not like the monument location and so will pull it.

The only things the surveyor can do is to indicate the monument locations to the contractor and advise him to preserve them, and to advise both client and contractor of any monument destruction codes of your state if you suspect that monument detruction will be an issue.

The cost of monument replacement should not be borne by the surveyor, especially if the surveyor has shown those locations to client and contractor or has otherwise made their locations obvious.

>
> In ALL THREE scenarios consider the following possibilities.
>
> 1. What are the affects of removing/destroying a survey monument?

It depends upon the nature of the monument. If you are talking about pincushions, removing all but the one best representing the valid establishment of the point can alleviate confusion. BUT....

Any removal of monuments, pincushion or otherwise, must be done only with the approval of all affected landowners. Affected landowners may include more than just those where the point is a corner of their land. The point may be a controlling point for more distant properties.

Anytime a monument is removed, it is destruction of potentially pertinent evidence of boundaries. The positions of any monuments to be removed relative to the next closest monument, or the monument to remain at the point, should be carefully documented in one's record of survey.

If the monument is destroyed by someone other than the surveyor, then documentation of its removal is unlikely to be available. The monument marked a point of a survey and after destruction, the only way to re-establish the point is from other points of the same survey or any ties made to it by subsequent surveys. This may or may not allow the point to be re-established with the desired level of certainty, depending upon the quality of the work of the previous surveys.

Destruction of monument evidence, unless done with care, with proper understanding by and permission of affected landowners, and with proper documentation (responsible destruction), always creates more work and more uncertainty in future surveys.
>
> 2. Does a court order nullify the significance of monuments?

It can. If a court ruling results in the recognition of lines and points other than as marked by the monuments in question, then their significance is not as reported or reputed by the survey by which they were set.

That does no necessarily eliminate their usefulness. Such monuments might yet be useful witness points to the true lines and corners as recognized by the court.

>
> 3. Does a boundary agreement nullify the significance of monuments?
>
No. If a Boundary Line Agreement is made to a line reported to have been marked by survey monuments, the agreement may have no force in that rather than a Boundary Line Agreement, it is actually a transfer of land disguised as an agreement to settle the line. If the monuments represent a valid prior establishment of the boundary, then the boundary is not uncertain, and so a Boundary Line Agreement cannot be made. This would be a Boundary Line Adjustment, and must be accomplished by a transfer of lands from one side of the established legal boundary to the other. Without a written transfer, the attempted Agreement would violate the Statute of Frauds and thus be invalid.

> 4. What are the surveyor’s responsibilities in preserving / perpetuating
> monuments?

Make the locations known to those with a valid interest and to those who may inadvertently disturb or destroy them, if such persons are known to the surveyor.

Document the locations of monuments such that their positions can be easily re-established with reasonable precision and accuracy.

> Some areas around here you have to have city or agency approval to adjust platted lot lines. Approval is typically in the form of a formal review of the record of survey showing the existing and soon-to-be new lot lines. Anything else simply won't work.

But, at least in theory, a boundary line agreement does not adjust the platted lot lines.

> 1) What are a surveyor’s ethical responsibilities in accepting an existing survey
> monument as a property corner?
>
> 2) What are a surveyor’s ethical responsibilities in dealing with a “pincushion”
> corner (e.g. where a single property corner is represented by multiple
> monuments).
>
> 3) What are a surveyor’s ethical responsibilities in dealing with the potential
> destruction of survey monuments by a client or a contractor working for the
> client?

Not to be picky (okay I'm probably being picky), but:

1. There are none.
2. There are none.
3. There are none.

Each of these questions, to me at least, deal with a surveyor's professional duty or responsibility; but none have the element of moral responsibility that defines the field of ethics.

Jim,

Ethics can be per one's personal moral code or can be a code of conduct for a professional or other group. It can be defined by a set of written rules or more nebulously as is the standard of practice we are all held accountable to as licensed professionals.

To say that "there are none" because "ethics" is a personal, moral thing, dodges legitimate questions of appropriate practice.

"Professional people and those working in acknowledged professions exercise specialist knowledge and skill. How the use of this knowledge should be governed when providing a service to the public can be considered a moral issue and is termed professional ethics."

I pulled that from Wikipedia, who in turn sourced it to some think tank group on professional ethics in London.

I prefer this distinction from the web page of the Louisiana Bar Association:

Professionalism concerns the knowledge and skill of the law faithfully employed in the service of client and public good, and entails what is more broadly expected of attorneys. It includes courses on the duties of attorneys to the judicial system, courts, public, clients, and other attorneys; attorney competency; and pro-bono obligations.

Generally, ethics rules tell us what we cannot do and professionalism deals with what we should do.

> Generally, ethics rules tell us what we cannot do and professionalism deals with what we should do.

I think that the most useful way to conceive of professional ethics (regardless of profession), is as the best practices or operating rules of a system that delivers some professional service to the public who generally benefit from the service. In the case of surveying ethics, the system is that of land ownership within which surveyors practice and land owners claim certain rights. Ethical principles are essentially those that regulate the relations between surveyors and all of the parts of the system.

Significant parts of the land ownership system include:

- land and other similar resources,
- land owners,
- surveyors,
- the legal system, meaning laws that establish rights,courts that confirm those rights, and the attorneys and judges who operate both.

The most important test that the system must pass at a minimum is the test of being sustainable. In practice, this means that it has the property of self-correction, that inherently unequal roles are balanced by rules of operation.

Each segment of the land ownership system has its own needs. In the marketplace for services in which most US land surveyors, myself included, practice, fees are negotiated between land surveyors and our clients. Clients have the rational contradictory needs to obtain services under arrangements that seek to maximize quality while minimizing cost, or to at least not maximize cost while minimizing quality.

Surveyors have a need to collect sufficiently large fees that surveying is a sustainable activity, that competent new surveyors arrive to replace those who retire or are killed while attempting to tell elderly widows that their fences weren't built to the correct line. Otherwise, the system is merely merely passing time until a large asteroid impact wipes the slate clean.

Land owners (at least the semi-rational ones upon which the system is founded), obviously benefit from having boundaries and titles ascertainable at the most reasonable cost. One large expected benefit of a well-performing system is that it shouldn't be necessary to litigate every boundary just to determine rights and limits of ownership.

Ideally, a land owner should be able to know where the boundaries of his or her land are and what the rights of use that he or she enjoys are without an extremely lengthy inquiry or trial by combat involving relatively expensive attorneys. A system founded upon unwritten agreements would be an excellent example of an extremely ill-performing land ownership system.

So, the ethical course is one that serves:

- the system,
- the client, and
- oneself

with due regard to the most enlightened interests of each.