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.?
This is what the Iowa Supremes said
As is commonly known, the original marks of the survey of our prairie lands consisted of wooden posts, mounds of earth, and shallow pits dug in the soil. In the nature of things, these monuments were of a temporary character; and, in the 70 or more years which have since intervened, these silent witnesses have become entirely obliterated, and the instances must now be rare where their location is retained in the memory of the ??oldest inhabitant.? As a natural result, disputes arising in these later
days over the true location of original lines and corners are often very difficult of satisfactory adjustment, and resort is necessarily had, not only to public records, but to a great variety of circumstances tending in some degree to solve the problem. Courts, surveyors, and commissions charged with such duty are therefore wont to observe, not only the government field notes, but the location of other lines and corners which are not in controversy; corners and lines which have had general recognition by the public; the location of fences and other farm improvements; the reports and marks of other surveys which have been made; the presence or absence of stakes, posts, stones, or other visible objects claimed by any party in interest to be monuments of the original or later survey; and generally, all obtainable information, direct or circumstantial, which can be of any assistance in reaching a just conclusion.
In all such cases, the official notes of the original survey have an important, though not necessarily conclusive, bearing.
For a guy like me taking the first of at least two Boundary and legal principles courses, this thread has been pure gold.
Thank you all for the insights and the perspective!
@norm?ÿ
They got one thing wrong: "entirely obliterated" is not true. Mostly obliterated, yes, entirely, no.?ÿ
But apart from that, this quote is in agreement with the vast majority of federal and state courts, and the BLM Manual. In other words, don't make the mistake of treating an obliterated corner as a lost corner.?ÿ?ÿ
@aliquot?ÿ
Yet how many times have we heard those things the Supremes tell us to use that make it not entirely obliterated cannot be considered because they don't fit a new breakdown.?ÿ?ÿ