Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Strictly Surveying › Maps with “Lines Not Surveyed”
@dougie
Posted by: @jph
Exactly. If I’m surveying a 100 acre parcel in order to cut out a 5 acre lot for the land-owner’s nephew, I’m not going to survey the entire parcel. Just the new lot, frontage, lines running from the road, etc, will be surveyed and dimensioned. The rest will be either shown as just lines, maybe with +/- distances, maybe not. Or I may just have a larger scale locus map to show the rest of the parcel.
Aren’t you concerned about potentially holding a disturbed monument? Or is the chance of that happening worth the risk of having to go back?
Posted by: @aliquot@jph then aren’t you surveying it? It sounds like you are reestablishing the boundary position by the best available evidence. Just because that evidence isn’t an on the ground measurement doesn’t mean it’s not a survey.
Aren’t on the ground measurements typically considered to be the best evidence?
If my survey takes me far off the subject tract, I’ll dash (line not surveyed line-type) the adjoining boundary lines leading to it. I’ll label the B&Ds and describe the monuments, but even though I have researched the adjoining boundary, I’m not being compensated for the liability of determining their boundary, so I don’t show it as “Surveyed”. I doubt I would/could/should do this in the PLSS.
In an extreme example, if surveying all of the parent tract was required to reestablish the subject tract, how would my client view my services if I charged him $6K for a boundary survey, then gave the adjoiner the benefit of my seal for free by showing all their boundaries as surveyed?
As I’ve expressed before, my duty to the public is met by being honest, transparent, and exceeding the minimum standards of practice. Dashed lines provide a means to aid a retracing PLS without devaluing my work and upsetting the person paying for it. My duty to my client is paramount.
- Posted by: @bstrandPosted by: @aliquot
@jph then aren’t you surveying it? It sounds like you are reestablishing the boundary position by the best available evidence. Just because that evidence isn’t an on the ground measurement doesn’t mean it’s not a survey.
Aren’t on the ground measurements typically considered to be the best evidence?
In the case described there is nothing remaining to be measured.
In general on the ground measurements are only supporting evidence that helps prove the identity of the found physical evidence. We usually show our measuments to help calculate area and to provide an aid to find the evidence we found and the evidence we create.
When there is nothing left on the ground measurements can become the best available evidence.
no one with any grey matter really would touch this issue ncpls1981-1994, after hugo and tornadoes.the impoundment of waters that were previously small branches,dadgum now with debris and mostly Beaver Ponds. a traverse to show closure along perimeter?????????? h*** with gps,you walk the lines for what evidence
Go hard and be safe all.
break a large beaver built impoundment. N.C.D.O.T. AND U.S.A.C.E. they be like the U.S. Marshal service.
of course all is now under the purvey of Homeland Security. and it should be our requisite is protect the public.we are licensed as a quasi-judicial to serve. hold that one close.
My thought on the OP (I happen to be in NC):
If I am retracing a boundary and a segment is not a firm line (marsh, swamp, multi-threaded creek), I may rely on a previous map and “line not surveyed”. Further, I believe we are provided that latitude in GS 47-30 (d) “…that the boundaries not surveyed are clearly indicated as drawn from information found in Book____, page ____;…”.
Personally, I will attempt to confirm locations along lines that I choose to reference, “not survey”, and satisfy my professional judgement prior to using such referenced information for my maps. Resulting disagreement can go to the extreme of informing the client of additional time/ effort to fully survey that section and map, accordingly.
A similar, sticky scenario for discussion (apologies for potential thread-jack).
If a local surveyor has recently recorded a retracement of an existing parcel. Then a subsequent purchaser wishes to engage you to do a lot division, do you find the following acceptable?
Locate enough evidence on the recently recorded boundary to have confidence in that map. Create a new line for the division (2 lots, total) and set the new mons.
File a new map of record for the division, showing only the new line as “surveyed”, with ties (B&D) to adjacent, parent monuments. Any other lines on the parent boundary shown for context would be as “lines not surveyed” referenced to the map book and page of the recently recorded retracement.
- Posted by: @back-chain
If a local surveyor has recently recorded a retracement of an existing parcel. Then a subsequent purchaser wishes to engage you to do a lot division, do you find the following acceptable?
Locate enough evidence on the recently recorded boundary to have confidence in that map. Create a new line for the division (2 lots, total) and set the new mons.
File a new map of record for the division, showing only the new line as “surveyed”, with ties (B&D) to adjacent, parent monuments. Any other lines on the parent boundary shown for context would be as “lines not surveyed” referenced to the map book and page of the recently recorded retracement.
That way doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
I don’t understand why you would verify the previous guy’s work and then not say so on your map. It seems like the perfect opportunity to do a record and measured drawing to me.
I have a survey of a parcel between landowners, the owner to the west with 800 Acres, the owner to the east with 30,000 Acres. So I can’t show some lines of this survey as unsurveyed lines? The 90 Acres in question has to be shown in context of the entire acreages and they all have to be surveyed?
I’m surveying a Lot of a section, the Lot is created by a river, the left bank of the river is the meander line of the lot, but I can’t show the right bank as unsurveyed?
I have a BLA between an 1800 acre and a 1200 acre ranch where they wish to clean up a 2 acre encroachment. Do I have to survey all 3000 acres?
I don??t know about other states, but in my area it??s required to show overlaps in occupation while surveying a boundary. My interpretation of ??line not surveyed? would be that no attempt was made to locate any occupational overlaps between the corners.
It’s actually required in a number of jurisdictions that there is a statement on the plat “not part of this survey” and another that says “not part of this subdivision”. If not placed on the plat the plat will be rejected. Of course these are parcels shown that weren’t surveyed but are shown for reference.
Saw a survey drawing earlier today tied to two controlling monuments. One at a section corner and one at the nearest quarter corner. Both locations have notes saying “Not recovered this survey.” But, are shown found previously per Land Survey Reference Report by LS #1234 in 2003.
Is what was found in 2003 even still there is 2022? Are the references from the Reference Reports still valid? The point of beginning of the surveyed tract is reported as being precisely 665.42 feet from one of those controlling corners and on a straight line connecting them. Wanna bet?
- I hope everyone has a great day; I know I will!
- Posted by: @tim-libs
I don??t know about other states, but in my area it??s required to show overlaps in occupation while surveying a boundary. My interpretation of ??line not surveyed? would be that no attempt was made to locate any occupational overlaps between the corners.
Why hinge the interpretation of the phrase on one,.of many, requirements for a survey?
- Posted by: @aliquotPosted by: @tim-libs
I don??t know about other states, but in my area it??s required to show overlaps in occupation while surveying a boundary. My interpretation of ??line not surveyed? would be that no attempt was made to locate any occupational overlaps between the corners.
Why hinge the interpretation of the phrase on one,.of many, requirements for a survey?
I guess I don’t see the note too often, but why would anyone leave a note of “line not surveyed” other than that reason? If “line not surveyed” meant the line is not accurately depicted, I could have already come to this conclusion without the statement being made as they wouldn’t have shown found or set controlling monuments, therefore it’s a redundant statement that wouldn’t change my interpretation of the Survey as a whole. That’s why I hinge my interpretation on that specific requirement as it actually makes sense in that case.
@bstrand Point noted and the situation is somewhat hypothetical.
I’ve kicked the idea around in my head over the years and have yet to do it. Largely comes up when a survey has been recorded within the past year, I know that surveyor (personally or by having followed their work many times), and I’m wrestling with pricing a 2 lot division as a complete, 10-acre retracement when the damn thing was just done.
As I’m typing, probably has to do with everyone’s current workload. Why doesn’t the client call the guy who just did the retracement? Oh, yeah. He was 2 months behind on delivering that and won’t answer the phone for the follow-up work.
Ultimately, I’m not convinced it would be a problem to do it in the manner described. The new division map would have to be filed, per regs. Referencing the recently recorded boundary for the “lines not surveyed” would keep the chain of records connected for future researchers. The new lots would be mapped, new monuments set, and ties to parent boundary could be easily retraced.
I’ll probably keep chewing on it from time to time. ??§
- Posted by: @tim-libsPosted by: @aliquotPosted by: @tim-libs
I don??t know about other states, but in my area it??s required to show overlaps in occupation while surveying a boundary. My interpretation of ??line not surveyed? would be that no attempt was made to locate any occupational overlaps between the corners.
Why hinge the interpretation of the phrase on one,.of many, requirements for a survey?
I guess I don’t see the note too often, but why would anyone leave a note of “line not surveyed” other than that reason? If “line not surveyed” meant the line is not accurately depicted, I could have already come to this conclusion without the statement being made as they wouldn’t have shown found or set controlling monuments, therefore it’s a redundant statement that wouldn’t change my interpretation of the Survey as a whole. That’s why I hinge my interpretation on that specific requirement as it actually makes sense in that case.
I can think of two reasons.
1. The line is depicted just for orientation or location and is drawn from a record, or even a local GIS.
2. The distance and bearing between two points have been measured, but no boundary determination has been made. For example, a tie to corner not on the parcel you are surveying is required for control of a corner of your parcel. This would include your interpretation, but also a whole lot more.
I use different methods in these situations, but a “line not surveyed” note seems reasonable to me.
I have noticed here often a “not visited this survey”, and sometimes a document number for a recorded corner, label at the endpoint of such lines shown for context.
Well, if you’re retracing a recent survey then finding the monuments should be much faster than it might have otherwise been, so I guess to me that helps justify the expense. It also seems a bit odd that the landowner would buy a ROS and not request the lot split at the same time. If it’s a matter of poor planning on the landowner’s part then I’d feel a little bit bad for them of course, but ultimately it’s not my responsibility to make up for that error.
Ultimately, I’m not convinced it would be a problem to do it in the manner described. The new division map would have to be filed, per regs. Referencing the recently recorded boundary for the “lines not surveyed” would keep the chain of records connected for future researchers. The new lots would be mapped, new monuments set, and ties to parent boundary could be easily retraced.
Yeah, but I don’t think it’s really helping to build the pedigree of the monuments when you do it this way.
Log in to reply.