How can the record dimensions be held on adjoining parcels? The measurements are rarely perfect and won't fit each other.
All 4 directions from a given corner say something.
1.) N 01?ø01'01" E 100'
2.) S 01?ø01'01" W 100'
3.) S 89?ø01'01" E 100'
4.) N 89?ø01'01" W 100'
From a given property pin. The dimensions are all there.The monuments are all there.
And, they all generate a coord that is within 0.02' of the SAME position.
And, West 0.59' of this generated coord, is a MONUMENT. It is a 5/8" rebar, that is probably over 3 feet long.
Now, on our plat, (Land to the SE) do we hold RECORD dimensions number 2 and 3, or do we update the "Record" by 0.59'?
Bill, that is what I meant.
Thank you for your response.
Nate
@ars-mine-surveyor Hmm??must be a regional thing because most states in my region generally hold monuments above all else largely due to most parcels being tied to old deeds where bearings and distances seldom agree with the adjoining deed but may call out the same monument. Also, more often than not, the bearing and distance might be 20?? off from the monument given the equipment from the era the parcel was surveyed in.
Now, on our plat, (Land to the SE) do we hold RECORD dimensions number 2 and 3, or do we update the "Record" by 0.59'?
?ÿ
We...show what we measured, as well as the record calls.
Showing measured vs. record isn't changing the record, but adding to it.
Even if we decided not to hold a monument, or our survey is at variance with a previous survey, it doesn't automatically override all previous work. It simply adds another survey to the record.
Different customary practices exist all over the place.?ÿ When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
Bill, that is what I meant.
No, what I meant, and didn't say clearly, was that if you try to give everybody the record dimensions you will either run out of ground or have some left over. And some adjoining parcel records may not agree on the line between them. That's why monuments rule.
?ÿ
I'm going to ask a question and then put another log on the fire and refill my coffee cup.?ÿ
In a survey recording state, is a recorded retracement survey measurement a record distance or a measured distance? Our law requires us to note the record distance and measured distance when they are different. There could sometimes be an original measurement as shown in the deed or the original survey followed by 2 or three retracement measured as distances of the same line, all recorded. I consider the original distance record and not any subsequent recorded survey measurements, but I've been wrong before. If I am wrong, I would have to recite every previous "record" distance as recorded as i.e 100.00(Bk A, pg x), 100.04(Bk B, Pg y), 99.96 (Bk C, pg z) etc. etc., measured as 100. 02. Point is, are we getting confused about what changing the record means to a title person as opposed to a surveyor??ÿ
That may be, but he's far more right than wrong.
?ÿ
I think that's true of most people, even the ones you may have a serious disagreement on a particular boundary.
Actually, with most things in life too.?ÿ
I am now reviewing surveys where the surveyor is disagreeing with himself.?ÿ He measured the same line on three different surveys.?ÿ The plat shows a GLO record distance, then he might show the measurement of that line by a different surveyor in 1965, then the slightly different distances he obtained on two of his own previous surveys and then the one for this survey.?ÿ What gets really hairy is if he also shows the various bearings that were used in all those prior surveys compared to the one he now feels is best.?ÿ You can see how this would drive the client and anyone else involved batty.?ÿ Some say it shows how perfectly we can measure today.?ÿ Others say it makes us look like fools.
Yesterday, I was reviewing a survey where the south section line had a bearing of so many degrees, so many minutes and 38 seconds for a half mile.?ÿ Then the first boundary line ran north some distance, followed by a line that you know was intended to be parallel to the south section line that runs for 75.00 feet at the same bearing----------except it is now 37 seconds instead of 38 seconds.?ÿ IN 75.00 FEET!!!
The difference would be 0.0003636 feet in 75 feet.?ÿ That is less than a fly speck.?ÿ Then why not show it agreeing with the bearing of the south section line.?ÿ This sloppiness adds to the confusion of those who are not surveyors.
record dimensions rule
How can the record dimensions be held on adjoining parcels? The measurements are rarely perfect and won't fit each other.
?ÿ
This area is mostly metes and bounds and the descriptions generally fit together relatively well. When they don't, we track down senior rights and show overlaps and gores when we need to.
?ÿ
Do you hold record dimensions over natural and artificial monuments? How about extrinsic evidence or occupation?
Also, which record? It's not unusual for a property I'm surveying to have 3, 4 or more records of survey over the years, all with different values for bearings and distances.
New York is not a mandatory recording state, so the most common record we have is the deed for the property. Maps are required to be filed for subdivisions, but are not regularly filed for property transfers. Once a parcel is created the deed description generally stays the same over time. Most deeds rely more on metes than on bounds, so called for surveys and monuments are few and far between. I would hold natural monuments if they are called for, but I have to evaluate most artificial monuments based on the record description, because I don't know who set them or when. Occupation doesn't get you very far in NY.?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ
?ÿ
This is the direct opposite to what one would expect to read in the survey notes of a Texas survey.?ÿ All four pages required to document the survey of an identical tract to the one above.
@norm Your interpretation is mine and if we aren't correct there are a number of bad consequences that would evolve from a different interpretation. Thus ours must be correct.
Do you hold record dimensions over natural and artificial monuments? How about extrinsic evidence or occupation?
Also, which record? It's not unusual for a property I'm surveying to have 3, 4 or more records of survey over the years, all with different values for bearings and distances.
New York is not a mandatory recording state, so the most common record we have is the deed for the property. Maps are required to be filed for subdivisions, but are not regularly filed for property transfers. Once a parcel is created the deed description generally stays the same over time. Most deeds rely more on metes than on bounds, so called for surveys and monuments are few and far between. I would hold natural monuments if they are called for, but I have to evaluate most artificial monuments based on the record description, because I don't know who set them or when. Occupation doesn't get you very far in NY.?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ
?ÿ
To add to this, New York also does not have a monumentation requirement outside of local rules for new subdivisions.?ÿ It's not uncommon to have to search dozens of parcels to find just a handful of unidentified monuments.?ÿ A seeming side effect of this is that at least in the downstate area I work in, deeds generally agree with each other mathematically, it's rare to find discrepancies of more than perhaps a tenth.
The state association is working towards legislation requiring monumentation for surveys, if it passes we may see surveying change to favor monuments over deed descriptions in the coming decades.
?ÿ
I spent 8 years of my career working in Texas, which is another non-recording state that did not require monumentation (at least not back then), and as others have said upthread, the deeds tend to be the best available evidence and a great deal of research had to be done to piece together the boundary puzzle.
I cannot remember more than a handful of cases (out of hundreds) where all the adjoiner deeds matched bearing & distance of the subject parcel deed exactly, and there were no physical monuments at all to measure from/to. If there were physical monuments marking the boundary, it was very rare for our measured B&D to match exactly with the record.
Now, if there is literally nothing left but the record B&D to use for a particular line, that's one thing.
But that's different than "record dimensions rule", which implies that we are blowing off existing monumentation that has been relied upon by landowners, in favor of record B&D.
Many moons ago I introduced the infamous "0.04' issue" because the very next surveyor (a friend of mine) chose to introduce that minute change to his new adjoining description compared to my existing description for a tract created a couple of years earlier.?ÿ That had to have happened prior to 2000.
