are you a 2-stater or a 48-stater?

In Georgia you "may" have to submit to Planning and Zoning. IF you place a statement that no roads and/or utilities were added the Clerk of Superior Court is SUPPOSED to record the plat. Some resist this and still want to require approval by Planning and Zoning. Georgia is not a required recording state.

Andy

Kansas has a partial review requirement. The way the statute reads, each county is to appoint someone ( a Kansas-licensed land surveyor, of course) to review the surveys that are supposed to be filed with the county register of deeds office for permanent storage. Nearly all of those are cases where a new tract is being created. Surveys of existing tracts do not have this requirement.

As this duty is put on the counties with no funding provided to address this statutory requirement, every county is a wee bit different from its neighbors. So, it is not applied uniformly across the state. In some cases the counties totally ignore the statute and simply file anything they are handed. In other cases the counties do nothing but instruct whomever wants a survey plat recorded to send the plat and a set fee to Joe Land Surveyor at such and such address 50 to 300 miles away to get his blessing. Once he returns it with his blessing indicated thereon, the county will file it. Other counties have named a specific entity to do all reviews and charge a fee to recover the costs they have in retaining his services on a part time basis. Other counties will accept most anything if it has been reviewed by another licensed land surveyor who is not a part of the same firm who prepared the survey.

I work in counties that exhibit each of the above practices. I routinely do reviews in three counties and occasionally do so in a couple of others.

With all the variety you get some very minor reviews and some others from a guy we all thought died in a bunker in Germany back in 1945.

Aloha, I am not a PLS. But we hired a PLS to resurvey our properties. No review by the county surveyor was required. No recording is necessary either!

My PLS told me it is up me if I wanted to have it recorded or not. I am going to have it recorded. Just to leave a official paper trail for the future generations 🙂

Aloha from Hawaii!

celestialpawn11, post: 332960, member: 10351 wrote: I am trying to complete a "survey" of all 50 states, regarding regs, laws relating to mapping requirements, platting codes,etc.,

So far, my findings from reading the rules across our nation, is that only two states, Oregon & California, have laws that require a county surveyor department to review, approve, sign and file/record a survey plat, record of survey, or survey map. This boils down to, in many instances, to being told "how to survey", since that county surveyor is also stamping and signing the survey map.

A number of other states, at least 20 to 30, such as Washington, Nevada, Arizona, Alaska, Iowa, Idaho, to name a few, have recording laws for Records of Surveys and plats of surveys. But no review requirement for that recorded map which the surveyor takes downtown to the auditor or recorder.

Am trying to find out if there is someone on this website who lives in the other 48 states and has to have their survey "reviewed and approved" by a county or city surveyor. This does not necessarily apply to subdivision mapping. I think virtually all 50 states have some type of regs in place for reviewing subs, even if it is just a planning dept. for basic conformance to master plan, zoning,etc.

My basic question is for the magazine article I am trying to complete is: "Do two states have it right and the other 48 states have it wrong"?
Or the other title I am considering; "Is someone telling you how to survey" ?

Thank you all for any input !

Utah has a filing statue. Record of Surveys get filed with the County Surveyor. Many rural counties don't have a county surveyor so it goes to the recorder. Most just charge a fee and file it and then start selling copies to the public. Some counties with county surveyors will review them for the technical details required by the state law. They may ask for a tweak before they officially file it. There is no requirement that the county surveyor approve and sign/stamp the surveys and I don't know of any that do.

I've seen plenty of surveys that I don't think should have ever been filed but at least they are there to sort of point you into how they messed it up so bad. I've seen other surveys that are excellent and very valuable to a retracing surveyor. I'm not in favor of a strict checking/formal approval of surveys and the costs and time that would be required for that sort of a system. At least half of the calls I get to do boundary survey can't afford to have one done. To double the cost to have it checked by a county surveyor would just make it worse. If the state wants the county surveyor to do all this and check it all they might as well just have the county take on all the work and charge for it. At least that would be honest and show that all the over the top government is the problem with the cost for having a survey done.

One thing the review requirement has done is to get most everybody to crank out fairly complete plats. Some of the old ones are unbelievably bad. About two weeks ago I was attempting to gather critical info to come up with an estimate to do what sounded like a very simple job. Lady owns Lot 16 in a subdivision created in the mid-1980's. Wants to buy a triangle shape off of the owner of Lot 17 who is selling out completely anyway. From this lot corner to that lot corner to a third lot corner then back to the first one. Piece of cake. WRONG!!!!!!!!!! The subdivision plat is a cartoon. Imagine a path walked by a drunk skunk scaled up for which there is zero information on road width, point of curvature, radius, length of arc or any curve data whatsoever for every last little wiggle and squirm along the route. Side lot lines have distances but no relative angles. Distances along the one road might be chord or arc or anything they felt like writing down........you have nothing to compare them to. Then two years after the initial plat they do a replat of about half of the 40 or so lots, including Lot 17, but not Lot 16. Then a law suit gets filed by the adjoiner who wins and the back line of about 20 lots has to be adjusted somewhere between 17 and 42 feet along certain lots and about 4 to 15 feet on others and about 1 to 3 feet on some others. Both Lots 16 and 17 get whacked. Everybody's description still reads what it was before the law suit.

You may have overstated the power of the County Surveyor in Oregon to affect the resolution shown on a Record of Survey. Strictly speaking, they don't have any such power over routine boundary surveys. Mostly they just ask you to fully explain and justify your resolution on the map, which can sometimes lead you to making a change yourself.

Pretty much the same is true in California. The review by the County Surveyor is for compliance with the statutory requirements. If an egregious method of boundary establishment is portrayed, and the surveyor cannot agree with a CS comment, then each may place a note describing the disagreement and then it is filed with the Recorder.

The vast majority of review is that of another pair of eyes from someone not as invested in effort in the survey. Most comments are - Norman says - directed toward fuller explanation for future retracing surveyors.

Warren Smith, post: 332979, member: 9900 wrote: Pretty much the same is true in California. The review by the County Surveyor is for compliance with the statutory requirements. If an egregious method of boundary establishment is portrayed, and the surveyor cannot agree with a CS comment, then each may place a note describing the disagreement and then it is filed with the Recorder.

The vast majority of review is that of another pair of eyes from someone not as invested in effort in the survey. Most comments are - Norman says - directed toward fuller explanation for future retracing surveyors.

Warren: from the comments that come from our particular county surveyor department, it is the general opinion of the practitioners I have talked to, that we are being told "how to survey", not just requests for further explanations. Our particular Co. LS has stated that one of his functions is "mentoring", he is particularly interested in mentoring newly licensed persons, but from his input, he is actually "mentoring" everyone. But "mentoring" or training is not in the Professional Land Surveyor's Act, Section 8700-8805

Celestial,

It is a fine line between mentoring to an extreme degree and merely seeking consistency with local practice. While each region in this state has established standards, there are universal guidelines for retracement surveying. And this is what we do, until we establish interior subdivided lots. The boundary, however is still a retracement.
While general plans control each jurisdiction ' s control over orderly development (and under requirements of local development codes), the portrayal of the boundary establishment falls within the purview of the Land Surveyors' Act.
There is an element of protection of the public interest in ensuring a clear depiction of the performance of retracement shown on maps. After all, someone will be following in your footsteps someday.
When you study previous maps, there is sometimes a dearth of information that can frustrate your efforts in locating controlling monuments. I suspect this practice came from a lack of gentle mentoring.
My experience has been that a culture of an ongoing frank and respectful dialogue with the County Surveyor's office is essential to prevent this sense of being condescending to that you describe.
This is a two way street. Hopefully you all meet regularly at your CLSA chapter. The fine line I spoke of can be broadened by mutual effort.
The two states which retain the office of County Surveyor may not feel the pressure to abolish this function.

I should point out that I am licensed in three of the states that don't have a County Surveyor. While I have filed many survey maps with no 'official sanction', the lack of such certification makes me no less liable for being named in an action at law.
It turns out that the ministerial review of a filed map is limited as to a bar to any culpability I may incur.
Where I enjoy the reasoned oversight of my methodology, it can be a cut rate QA of my work product.
A good indicator of this relationship is when advice is sought and readily given prior to the map being submitted. This would apply in those gnarly retracements with a multitude of options to consider.
This is a level of professional dialogue that comes over time. Of course, given the particular egos that surveyors are known for, it can be contentious at times.

celestialpawn11, post: 332981, member: 10351 wrote: we are being told "how to survey"

The CS can tell you anything he wants, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with him. The procedure for getting a Record of Survey filed when there is a disagreement between the submitting surveyor and the CS is well-defined, so unless the CS is actively violating the statute there shouldn't be any problem in accomplishing a timely filing.

If you're confident that your survey comports with the standard of practice, don't fear the note! I've only had to put a negotiated note on a ROS once, but the process worked smoothly and to everyone's satisfaction.

Well, I don't presently work in one of the 50 states, but I do work in the United States. So my comments may or may not be appropriate. And as I use my own name and have had an ongoing disagreement with local authorities, who I expect monitor this occasionally, I will try to restrain myself. I posted about this and got some support and helpful comments way back on the "Other Web Site" "Public Surveyor Refuses To Record Surveys". Very little has changed since then. The Public Surveyor is a PE. He reviews all surveys and approves them before recording. This sometimes has taken up to 2 years. One survey of mine is still not recorded after at least 5 years because I refuse to change the property lines to where the Public Surveyor says they should be. Another survey has been rejected because the abutting property owner has declined to sign off on the survey. His property in not affected in any way, but the Public Surveyor insists. There is no law that gives the Public Surveyor any authority at all.

All that said, we do have a problem with the quality of surveying in the Virgin Islands. I'm not aware that the Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers and Surveyors or the District Attorney has ever taken any action against a surveyor. And we don't have a Surveyors Professional Organization. There's only about a dozen or so of us active. We do need to be regulated, but I think it's being done wrong. It's enough to turn a liberal into a Republican. Sorry, Wendell.

I'd love to know about what happens in other territories. There was a post from a surveyor from Puerto Rico recently. Maybe she will respond, but of course Puerto Rico is much more like a state because of it's size. Any surveyors from Guam? A big part of our problem is that we're so small, the institutions the states have are missing here.

to Larry, I would say you obviously need an organization as with the various states.

I must say everyone's input has been worthwhile. It is good to hear from Warren Smith. I recall sending to a Smith,( PE,LS, and Co. LS) a brief questionnaire in 2010 so it was good to get an updated response if that is the same Smith who said he was somewhat new in the position back then.

One of the responses back then (was in 2010, this has been a lengthy process, studying the laws in all 50 states) was from Warren Ward, Co. L.S., Grand County, Colorado, and that year's president of the national association of county surveyors. Maybe I can still quote him here; it points to the value of having a second pair of eyes, but keep in mind, he says his mandated job is not to review surveys. (again, Colorado being one of the 48-states that has no requirement for review)

"Sometimes I see something that I know is wrong. If that happens, I write a cordial letter explaining what I believe should be changed. Usually, they send a new plat because most are good surveyors that simply overlooked something. A few times, I got no response. In Colorado, I think I have done my duty by writing the letter. Going further than that should only be done when I can see someone out there doing a lot of poor work. I have turned these people in to the state board when they refused to consider my concerns. The state board will try to work it out with the respondent. In my county, 3 very poor surveyors have had their licenses revoked under these circumstances. There are probably about 5 cases where the state board asked the respondent to correct their plat and they definitely did it. This is all very unpleasant business. However, if you see someone out there that just does not get it, we have to stop it.
Back to your question, I have never refused to deposit a plat even when I see something is plainly wrong or not in accordance with statutes. In fact, I have discovered my own errors, and filed new plats. The public sees both.
In Colorado, the county surveyor does NOT check survey plats. In fact, they were required to check deposited plats when the law was introduced in 1987, but that was repealed in 1988 because the land surveyors did not like the way this was being done.
The key word to me is recording: If a plat is recorded, then it affects title and a check is warranted and is the best way to protect the public. When the county records a plat, it has some responsibility to the public. In Colorado, we "deposit" or file survey plats (not same as recording) that do not affect title. Faulty surveys are troublesome, but it is not as grave a problem as a recorded plat.
I have found enough errors from good surveyors, not to mention bad surveyors, to prove that a check on recorded plats is warranted. Ironically, most often the real bad errors occur when a landowner goes with a low bid surveyor. The surveyor has run out of money; and when I cite problems with the survey that need to be fixed, the landowner is the most vocal objector. I assume that is these type of owners that object to the county beaurocrats charging to check the surveys. "

In my opinion, Colorado is one of the 48 states that has got it right; non-mandated review as needed. Oregon and CA land surveyors need to organize and learn from the other 48 states.

Hi i am a survey technician going on 10 years now. Here in northeast tennessee we have what they call a planning comission.Its somewhat complex(depending on scenario) for example when u subdivide a piece of property here we all know you cant land lock a piece of property here a piece of property has to atleast have 40 foot of road frontage well thats what the banks require however if its a division of the heirs (family) u can do 10,12,15 foot right of way or easement over existing gravel drives or taod ways or access etc once again just one of a hundred thousand different scenarios here the plat goes to planning comission and they either approve and sign off or dont and tell u how to survey so they can sign off just a lityle input from a survey tech ty

I would urge you to go back and read your initial post. Seeing you state a conclusion while asking for input raises a concern. I understand this is something you have been looking into for a long time. Even so, the manner of asking will no doubt flavor any responses.
We encounter abuse even in States where no review authority exists. GIS techs 'reject' surveys, Title officers refuse to include descriptions they don't like, the list goes on. The fault is not in the policy. Jerks will be Jerks regardless.
There are 50 States and 50 very different sets of laws. While we can learn from each other it is unrealistic to assume the same policies will get the same results everywhere. A limited review policy has merit in most places.
My .02, Tom

I agree with your last statement bionic, "a limited review policy has merit in most cases". The way Warren Ward describes the process in Colorado makes sense to me.

Yes, it is my observation and other licensed persons I have spoken with, that we are being told "how to survey". ex.,"Why did you hold these three monuments and not use that monument?" Everything is questioned. Should it be that way ? The other 48 states apparently think not or they would have mandated it by now.

So far, to the best of my knowledge, the licensed people in the two states that have mandated review have not mounted an objection to being "sheparded".
My request is for others to comment. When your work is being reviewed and the reviewer is raising objections, it is easy to start feeling like "we the sheepeople". That is my personal reaction. Aside from that, I believe some of the reviewers are not jerks. They are each a dutiful cog marching along in a system that has been allowed to go wrong. I have found it takes more than a few people in a state wide organization to step up and do the work to correct a system in place for a long time. My own observation is that licensed practitioners become mesmorized, they are so used to it being a certain way, they do not question, it is almost trance-like, they see the "review" process as a natural part of the surveying process. Yes, we the sheeple.

Celestial,

It is unfortunate that you perceive review comments to be criticism. More often, these are efforts to have the submitting surveyor more clearly depict his or her analysis.
Again, I would direct you to take a look at prior filed surveys and assess whether they are always sufficient to enable you to properly discern how to reestablish a missing corner when there is a lack of information about its original positioning.
Among the functions of a County Surveyor is to impartially maintain the progeny of controlling monuments.
You may be conflating a sincere effort to keep harmony between dissenting procedures to retrace prior boundary establishment and the advocacy of an individual landowners' interests.
If you sense an implied condescension to experienced practitioners, then seek to have that dialogue with the CS. He or she serves at the pleasure of the Board of Supervisors in California. You will have to document a clear pattern of overreaching in order to send an effective message to those policy makers.
It will have much more impact if correspondence comes from a committee of your local chapter of a state survey association.
This is sensible if consensus can be reached among the body of your peers.

Oh, and I should point out that am not the earlier respondent to which you referred.
After a number of years in the private sector, I have been a public servant for the past 25 years - in a review and approve capacity.
It is useful for me to recall the process from the other side of the counter.
There is indeed a greater good in play throughout this process.

Warren Smith, post: 333105, member: 9900 wrote: Oh, and I should point out that am not the earlier respondent to which you referred.
After a number of years in the private sector, I have been a public servant for the past 25 years - in a review and approve capacity.
It is useful for me to recall the process from the other side of the counter.
There is indeed a greater good in play throughout this process.

Warren, I think your comments have been helpful. I have wondered why the local organization that has expressed this same concern of mine has not acted as per your comment to correct the situation through formal means. That was the source of my "we the sheeple" observation.

I do believe also that county surveyors are needed as a second pair of eyes, as per my quote of Warren Ward, Co LS from Colorado above. Again, I think the 48 states have it right; (including Bionic's comment) the review should not be required, it could be as needed, at the discretion of the Co. LS. as in Colorado. Mr. Ward calls it the "over-checking phenomena" and I agree with him, over-checking or over-review, tends to discourage map filing and encourages surveyors to perform surveys without setting monuments.