@norm he says he found a spike in top of a fence post which is the corner of an aliquot which by definition is on the section line but his version of the true section line goes to a point calculated from some DOT information. North of the quarter corner he stretches a straight line to the section corner. So Carr goes to the monumented line but this survey holds back to the straight line.
The California Court said in the last decade that 19th century lines are not necessarily perfectly straight and to use whatever evidence is available to locate the line, meaning prior but not original surveys.
We know lots of courts all over have said similar things and yet it still seems to fall on deaf ears. This was Survey 101 for rules of retracement the way I was taught. I will give the new survey credit for retracing the established lines but not for showing calculated original section lines AND established section lines where there has to be one. This very similar to showing new section breakdown along with occupation except the survey uses the occupation as the boundary.?ÿ
The purpose of a survey is to locate the boundaries and provide enough information to support that decision to provide certainty and stability to all interested parties.?ÿ
@dave-karoly I am happy to be a colonial surveyor. you all out west make it too complicated. Give me calls for abutters over sections any day of the week.
I shake my head when I see things like this.?ÿ I don't think "we" have lost our way, but many of the either uneducated surveyors or sometimes newer surveyors have not been mentored enough or take the time to research legal principles and court decisions prior to "doing their own thing".?ÿ Place that stamp on it, particularly if you record the survey, and your decisions become out in the open permanently, and can start the "trail of chaos" in a section or township.?ÿ And licensure is in place to protect the public, not damage the property fabric and create conflict for landowners by actions of the licensee where conflict does not actually exist.
Sectionalized lands, and the surveying there of, is actually pretty basic, as long as you are surveying and following the footsteps of the original surveyors, not being an expert measurer that disregards the history of the original survey.?ÿ I was once told that an original corner wasn't acceptable because the lines it was tied to were 4.5' short of the platted dimensions.?ÿ The surveyor that told me that had no clue what the allowable tolerances were when the original survey was commissioned.?ÿ That surveyor hadn't bothered to get a copy of the field notes, or even the GLO Plat, he just assumed the lines were 80 chains.
Jumping off of my soap box now....
The new survey was prepared by a person considered to be experienced, educated and a person of standing in the profession. I respect them for the contributions made to our profession through volunteer work and whatnot. We simply have differences of professional opinion as many do.?ÿ Ask 6 surveyors their opinion and you get 12 answers. I think for the most part experience can be a two edged sword. It's really hard to change your outlook after years of looking at things a certain way when there are two camps of reasoning being continually promoted and taught. Doctors bury their mistakes. Surveyors record them in the public record for all of us to criticize years later. I've tried to be careful to not make this personal. It's not.?ÿ?ÿ
Protracting the subdivision of sections saved money and time but has collected its due over and over.
@norm?ÿ
This isn't even?ÿ a matter of a difference of opinion yet, we need to get past the, " what are you trying to tell us" phase first.
Regarding the OP, what does the narrative say. It looks like the west "section line" is just a tie up from the quarter corner. Graphically shown these things is not easy.
For instance, if you happen to show record vs measured, which one do you show on the map? Personally, I want to show what I held, but they seem to do that for the parcel.?ÿ
However, as shown, have they created a hiatus?
Regarding the OP, what does the narrative say. It looks like the west "section line" is just a tie up from the quarter corner. Graphically shown these things is not easy.
For instance, if you happen to show record vs measured, which one do you show on the map? Personally, I want to show what I held, but they seem to do that for the parcel.?ÿ
However, as shown, have they created a hiatus?
No narrative is given. As for a a hiatus it depends on what the owners and following surveyors do. IMO a surveyor cannot create a gap or overlap simply by drawing a line on a plat map but they certainly can cause one by future actions of the owners who act based on their survey. If I were following which I'm not thankfully I would have one section line coincident with the old survey that shows a bend in it and the deeds that do not overlap or gap the section line and quite a lengthy narrative. I'd say there is a high chance owners will not act on the new breakdown line and continue using the old occupation as they have so far.?ÿ The only real danger in the future is the visitation of the next surveyor.?ÿ
@dmyhill I'd like to think that he is just showing ties and not an aliqout line straight between the 1/4 corners. But he puts a label of "west line" on 2 separate lines and also calls out the 4.93 distance. Typically not something that would be done unless one was depicting the section line and not just a tie between the aliquot corners.
?ÿ The only real danger in the future is the visitation of the next surveyor.?ÿ
"I am a surveyor and I am here to help."
Is that now the scariest thing for a homeowner to hear??ÿ
The California Court said in the last decade that 19th century lines are not necessarily perfectly straight and to use whatever evidence is available to locate the line, meaning prior but not original surveys.
Could you please provide a citation for this??ÿ I would love to read that case.....
@david-kendall When I wrote that I couldn't remember the name of the case but I turned my computer back on and found it:
Bloxham v. Saldinger, 228 Cal.App.4th 729, 745 (2014): ?? ??Lines actually run and marked on the ground may be?ÿproved by any evidence, direct or circumstantial, competent to prove any other disputed fact, and where markers?ÿof the original survey have been destroyed, secondary evidence as to the authenticity of their relocation is?ÿadmissible.?? California recognizes these rules to be sound.? (Chandler v. Hibberd, supra, 165 Cal.App.2d at p. 55,?ÿ332 P.2d 133.) The Saldingers have not provided legal authority establishing that a monument ??called to be on the?ÿRancho line by common report? of a number of documents could not be considered by surveyor Jensen in locating?ÿthe Rancho line established by the original survey.?
