Nice attorney's article on Utah's Acquiescence Law. Lots of explanation why the law reduces boundary litigation.
From the last page - King v. Fronk, 14 Utah 2d 135, 378 P.2d 893, 896 (Utah 1963).
It is significant that in most cases, a physical, visible
means of marking the boundary was effected at a
time when it was cheaper to risk the mistake of a
few feet rather than to argue about it, go to court,
or indulge the luxury of a survey, pursuance of any
of which motives may have proved more costly than
the possible but most expedient sacrifice of a small
land area. The rub comes when, after many years,
land value appreciation tempts a test of the
vulnerability of a claimed ancient boundary. The
struggle usually involves economics. Nothing is
wrong in the urge to acquire or retain. But neither
is there anything wrong in the law’s espousal of a
doctrine that says that with the passage of a long
time, accompanied by an ancient visible line
marked by monuments with other pertinent and
particular facts, and with a do-nothing history on
the part of the parties concerned, can result in
putting to rest titles to property and prevent
protracted and often belligerent litigation usually
attended by dusty memory, departure of witnesses,
unavailability of trustworthy testimony, irritation
with neighbors and the like. This idea is based on
the concept that we must live together in a spirit
justifying repose or fixation of titles where there
has been a disposition on the part of neighbors to
leave an ancient boundary as is without taking
some affirmative action to assert rights inconsistent
with evidence of a visible, long-standing boundary.
In the vernacular, the doctrine might be
paraphrased to enunciate that boundaries might be
established by an “I don’t give a hoot” attitude on
the part of neighbors.
I don't believe it. History tells us that settlement preceded or followed closely the survey of the public lands (and the same thing in the colonial lands, at least of the northeast).
I think Utah experiences the same thing as NY and other places. Surveyors fail to know the history, fail to search for or recognize evidence; and because of this put the line where it should have been instead of where it was originally laid out.
I suspect that most of the fences built in 1920's era Utah were placed between surveyed corners. I could be wrong, but I've never seen anything posted to contradict that normal historical process. On the other hand, Kent Mc. has posted information that TX history and statutes encouraged fences not necessarily built on the property line.
The underlying (and sometimes explicit) statutory intent of the whole PLSS is survey before sale, and by 1805 that lines run are controlling, not the aliquot description.
POB has a recent article that proposes again that if the marker is not mentioned in the deed, it is not there. This ignores all historical evidence and is likely to help continue the litigation over settled land boundaries.
The battle with the title people is never ending, but we must assert our role as investigators of the past.
My sense of it is the same. A large part of these ancient long held fence lines were originally surveyed by someone, maybe the landowners themselves. They have been used and held ever since at least until someone decided to remeasure it or have a survey done. In my area there is no record of what they did or how the did it. The deed descriptions are mostly just metes without bounds (very few if any calls for monuments). The title folks where pretty careful to construct a nice clean record that all fits together on paper but almost never fits together on the ground (sorry, sections are not a 5280x5280 perfect square - even in the GLO record; hey, but no need to leave the office to cook a description up).
So the fallback is acquiescence to the old visible line, the one probably surveyed long ago, the line that doesn't perfectly match the deed or the data collector readout, or even a modern section breakdown using non pedigreed section corners.
And by the way, I encounter plenty of landowners that don't value their land for what a survey would cost. So I don't believe things have really changed all that much. But the law is there, easier to access than ever before. Time to own up to it!