What are differences between PLSS and non-PLSS systems?

Well, this question ought to generate a long list of replies. Maybe no one dares to start the flood? This fool will rush in.

My take is:
The PLSS had the original surveyors (usually deputies hired by the General Land Office or its successor agencies) try to make 6-mile square townships, then subdivided into 1-mile square sections. (Ohio where PLSS all started has some other sizes as well.) They left subdividing of sections into aliquot parts to be done by local surveyors or occasionally the purchasers themselves. By the time convergence of the meridians, measurement inaccuracies, some undocumented shortcuts, and a few cases of outright fraud affected the results, there are some significant differences from accurate squares. One example is that all the discrepancy in subdividing a 6-mile-square township into sections was thrown into the last range and tier of sections to be laid out so some odd sizes and shapes occur there.

The procedures evolved over centuries so you have to know the applicable procedures for dealing with convergence, closing error, and the expected monumentation for the area of interest. An example is whether closing a section line to the township line was made to coincide with the section in the other township, or whether it used the section line as measured, leading to an extra set of corners along the township line.

Then smaller pieces have been, and continue to be, broken out by metes and bounds and subdivision plats, which leads to most of the problems a surveyor in a non-PLSS area has to deal with, except that the boundary descriptions are usually more definite (not just an unmarked oak tree and fifty paces). In some states the survey history is usually a lot better recorded, also, but unfortunately not all.
----
Non-PLSS areas (especially the New England colonies) have very long histories relative to PLSS, so deed research may be more problematic, and old descriptions were often vague. The extent of Smith's land may be bounded by the lands of Green, White, and Black with minimal other description to help place the boundaries, distances and bearings were sometimes crude, and many landmarks referred to have disappeared decades or centuries ago. Newer descriptions are (we hope) more definite and easier to follow.

Some other states had colonial land grants that were surrounded by some form of mostly rectangular divisions, not necessarily cohesive. Georgia and Texas come to mind. California has lots of Spanish land grants surrounded by PLSS. Some states have Native American lands with their own forms of subdivision surrounded by PLSS.

So all systems have their problems. I hope this is a fair summary.

PLSS...The Federal Government surveyed about the western 2/3rds of the U.S. into 1 mile squares (640 acres) arranged into square townships of 36 sections each. The smallest unit patented was 1/16th of a square mile or 40 acres but monuments were only set on the Section exterior boundary so most Patent corners were not monumented by the government. Texas is not a part of the PLSS and Ohio was the proving ground. Most of the work was done on the frontier in the 19th century with compass and chain or later with solar compass so what is simple in theory is not simple in practice.

In Metes and bounds states the original grants were issued one at a time in odd shapes by the state or the English crown before 1776. These tend to have more complete monumentation but since they were done in sequence grants first in time have priority. If grants overlap then the senior grant gets the land and if they don't touch land is left unpatented and in the public domain.

As mentioned by others above, many states have a mixture of survey types even though the major work is thought of as being PLSS or Colonial. For example, the PLSS original work in the State of Missouri dates to the early 1820's in places and considerably later in others. But, especially near the St. Louis area, there are Spanish Land Grants and French Land Grants that pre-date the PLSS. There may be some Indian lands as well as are common in quite a number of states. To make things even more fun is that the PLSS instructions were changed from time to time resulting in one part of a state following an early set of instructions while another part of the same state used a later set of instructions. I can encounter that change by traveling only six miles from my house.

I'd explain it with two pictures. This is what the scheme of the Public Land Survey System aka the Rectangular Survey followed in the Western US tended to produce as a cadastral framework:

The scheme was designed for its simplicity and is probably the simplest system of subdividing broad expanses of the public lands of the United States that can be imagined.

This, on the other hand, is what the pattern of the original land grants made by the Republic and State of Texas in Travis County where my office is looked like in about the year 1861 *as reflected by the records of the multitude of different surveys that separately established the boundaries of each grant on file in the Texas General Land Office*:

After 1861, the blank spaces continued to be filled in by individual land grants based upon separate surveys made for each. What this map does not disclose is that some of the existing grants shown upon it are grossly incorrectly plotted, leaving later surveyors to have to attempt to assemble the pattern that in PLSSia came ready-made.

The main purpose of the PLSS was to get the land into the hands of the citizens and to pay off the debts of the revolutionary war.
Thomas Jefferson's scheme of pre-surveyed mile square parcels laid out in cardinal directions was the fastest and fairest method and precluded disputes because the markers were there (on paper, anyway).
The descriptions were easy enough for the average layman to decipher and areas could be calculated by simple math. (10 chains by 10 chains is 10 acres.)
Buyers bought land "as is", nobody got to keep all the good stuff and leave random parcels of worthless land.
Theoretically there are no gaps or overlaps in the PLSS system.

Nothing, really. We are Professional Land Surveyors practicing in the system we work in. Boundary puzzles are boundary puzzles. There are some who will argue differently. That's okay. I will never feel less of a Professional based on what any anyone says, or shares, on this forum based on the system in which I work. Maybe if I worked in Texas, where I was born, I would feel differently? I think not.

Bill93, post: 440394, member: 87 wrote: Well, this question ought to generate a long list of replies. Maybe no one dares to start the flood? This fool will rush in.

My take is:
The PLSS had the original surveyors (usually deputies hired by the General Land Office or its successor agencies) try to make 6-mile square townships, then subdivided into 1-mile square sections. (Ohio where PLSS all started has some other sizes as well.) They left subdividing of sections into aliquot parts to be done by local surveyors or occasionally the purchasers themselves. By the time convergence of the meridians, measurement inaccuracies, some undocumented shortcuts, and a few cases of outright fraud affected the results, there are some significant differences from accurate squares. One example is that all the discrepancy in subdividing a 6-mile-square township into sections was thrown into the last range and tier of sections to be laid out so some odd sizes and shapes occur there.

The procedures evolved over centuries so you have to know the applicable procedures for dealing with convergence, closing error, and the expected monumentation for the area of interest. An example is whether closing a section line to the township line was made to coincide with the section in the other township, or whether it used the section line as measured, leading to an extra set of corners along the township line.

Then smaller pieces have been, and continue to be, broken out by metes and bounds and subdivision plats, which leads to most of the problems a surveyor in a non-PLSS area has to deal with, except that the boundary descriptions are usually more definite (not just an unmarked oak tree and fifty paces). In some states the survey history is usually a lot better recorded, also, but unfortunately not all.
----
Non-PLSS areas (especially the New England colonies) have very long histories relative to PLSS, so deed research may be more problematic, and old descriptions were often vague. The extent of Smith's land may be bounded by the lands of Green, White, and Black with minimal other description to help place the boundaries, distances and bearings were sometimes crude, and many landmarks referred to have disappeared decades or centuries ago. Newer descriptions are (we hope) more definite and easier to follow.

Some other states had colonial land grants that were surrounded by some form of mostly rectangular divisions, not necessarily cohesive. Georgia and Texas come to mind. California has lots of Spanish land grants surrounded by PLSS. Some states have Native American lands with their own forms of subdivision surrounded by PLSS.

So all systems have their problems. I hope this is a fair summary.

Bill

Grest summation, though I must disagree as to the metes and bounds descriptions in new england. Through diligent research one often finds excellent descriptions of the land as the result of a long lost survey. In my locale, one must often search prior to the civil war to find a good description (with bearings and distances). Land values in NE plumeted after the civil war and, since scrivners were paid by the word, many descriptions were truncated.

The difficulty lies in the title obtained from common land, these rights were granted by shares, and the records of the town are generally in poor shape after 400+ years of use. In fact, the town records of Portsmouth were burned by the selectmen in the mid to late 17th century mainly due to questions over title as Mason's heirs tried to exert their rights in the area.

Surveying in New England requires a deep understanding of local histoy. Not saying PLSSia does not, only that I have found many a deed crucial to my survey by understanding the genealogy of certain families. The local histories witten near the end of the 19th century are an invaluable resource.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Long responses. This is overly simplistic.

In metes and bounds, it's all mismatched and needs to be fixed.

In PLSSia you have to fix the 'grid' everything was divided into, then you fix the mismatched stuff that is within each grid. Or just hold the fence line. 😛

when land leaves the Public Domain the PLSS "pattern" becomes less important. "The Manual" is only a guide to recovery, if necessary. Often we have metes and bounds later created within and over that now unimportant grid, kinda
PLSS without an element of metes and bounds is rare, in my experience.

In NW Oregon I ran into BLM 1/256 monuments, 2" pipes with Brass Caps. I don't recall the details, but it was wooded and not mineral lands.

Peter Ehlert, post: 440416, member: 60 wrote: when land leaves the Public Domain the PLSS "pattern" becomes less important. "The Manual" is only a guide to recovery, if necessary. Often we have metes and bounds later created within and over that now unimportant grid, kinda

In NW Oregon I ran into BLM 1/256 monuments, 2" pipes with Brass Caps. I don't recall the details, but it was wooded and not mineral lands.

The significant difference that glosses over, though, is that in a typical PLSS township there will not be any confusion as to whether the original subdivision of the township omitted any land that is still owned by either the United States, or some State to which its rights in the land subsequently passed. You may take that feature for granted, but it is a major simplification.

The other major difference is that inside a typical PLSS township, the subdivision was surveyed as one operation that continued from day to day with the same field party and same deputy directing the effort and under a specific set of instructions. That means that in that same township each mile-square section of land is not some isolated thing but has lines and corners that are expected to relate to those of the adjoining sections in some regular fashion. While it may be true that the system has fallen into disrepair in many places, that doesn't mean that the basic system is not relatively simple.

Kent McMillan, post: 440417, member: 3 wrote: The significant difference that glosses over, though, is that in a typical PLSS township there will not be any confusion as to whether the original subdivision of the township omitted any land that is still owned by either the United States, or some State to which its rights in the land subsequently passed. You may take that feature for granted, but it is a major simplification.

The other major difference is that inside a typical PLSS township, the subdivision was surveyed as one operation that continued from day to day with the same field party and same deputy directing the effort and under a specific set of instructions. That means that in that same township each mile-square section of land is not some isolated thing but has lines and corners that are expected to relate to those of the adjoining sections in some regular fashion. While it may be true that the system has fallen into disrepair in many places, that doesn't mean that the basic system is not relatively simple.

In the open prairie I suppose so. In the mountainous West there are many completion surveys, and gaps (unintended Public Lands) ... sometimes.

There is no difference, SURVEYING is following in the original surveyors footsteps.

Paul in PA

Paul in PA, post: 440419, member: 236 wrote: There is no difference, SURVEYING is following in the original surveyors footsteps.

Paul in PA

So is this back-and-forth between some members of the board kinda like a Chevy v Ford argument? No real difference?

Both started out with great intentions to sell land to tax to run countries.
Mistakes were made and following footsteps became important.
Some days are as easy as walkin thru a field of clover on a sunny day.
Then on other days, it is more like everyone that drives in the world are on the wrong side of the road at the same time.
0.02

Greek and Russian are both languages. Learning one requires learning many basic facts. Learning the other requires learning a different set of basic facts. The one doing the learning needs nearly the same set of skills to become competent at either.

Colonial Surveyors are snootier, superior, and fix problems that no one ever knew they had in ways that no one would ever understand, or care about. PLSS surveyors have a manual to tell them what to do 🙂

foggyidea, post: 440436, member: 155 wrote: Colonial Surveyors are snootier, superior, and fix problems that no one ever knew they had in ways that no one would ever understand, or care about. PLSS surveyors have a manual to tell them what to do 🙂

Chicks dig Colonial Surveyors

The PLS system is the right way. Everything to the south of that is wrong. Hahaha

Conrad, post: 440421, member: 6642 wrote: So is this back-and-forth between some members of the board kinda like a Chevy v Ford argument? No real difference?

I would put PLSS on the Ford side of that equation, Fixed Or Repaied Daily.

By the way, I am a MOPAR guy.

Paul in non PLSS PA