They redline a simple record of survey?
>"Since a survey must be recorded and it must be reviewed before being recorded"
It is possible, to the chagrin of the county employees, for a state to limit the review to only legibility and such trivial matters, and not to the information on the document.
As to County staff reviewing Surveys....Give a guy a hammer and everything looks like a nail!
That's the best part; they take on all the liability...
In Washington, the Auditor reviews the drawing(a simple record of survey) to make sure the margins are correct and the font is the appropriate size; readable. Plats and most boundary line adjustments are reviewed by the planning department.
Clark county(across the river from Portland OR) is a little different; the county surveyor is deputized as an Auditor and they are responsible for the survey records, as I understand it.
I am unlicensed and still forming, changing, or adjusting my opinions. From a researching and retracing perspective, I am behind mandatory recording, the more information the better. Missouri is not a mandatory recording state. From a personal property perspective, I support the option of the client to be able to possess the property (survey deliverables) that they paid for. Why should others gain from the clients expense? If the survey does not produce the results that they wish to be made public, I can see why they would not want to have to record that.
