a new description for a re-tracement survey especially if the original can be placed on the ground.
A while back this was a topic discussed on the board. I can completely see why some people prefer doing so, but here is one example of many that I run across of why I do not like to do so. (If the image will display adequately.)
The green line is the original line created by a division of property in the early 1900s. Calls for trees and stakes.
In the 1960s, a surveyor prepared a new description. The property was conveyed with the new description and stating being ALL OF THAT PROPERTY RECORDED IN .... Intent being to convey the same property as the green line indicates. Calls for fence posts all around.
In the 1990s, another surveyor prepares as new description for the neighboring property as shown in magenta. Calls for iron pins set.
Of course I need to trace the properties back and I find that the common line at one point had an identical description from both deeds. I am still working on the property, but I have found that the 1900s survey was actually pretty good and is occupied with a fence line through the woods that is nearly a line fence (and bends at trees which are huge and match the called for 1900s trees). The 1960s surveyor has distances that can not work by as much as 20' on a 200' line. The 1990s surveyor added many additional breaks in the line and just completely skipped a series of calls in the middle portion.
On the opposite side of the property I am working on, the 1960s surveyor transposed a 5 for a 3. So the same 1990s surveyor was working on a separate property on that side and used the calls of the 1960s surveyor. A difference of 20 degrees. Once more, the older deeds (before being re-written) matched perfectly. I will have to wait until I do my field work on that side before making a call, but there may be an issue with cutting timber well over the line.
In my area, I often find that the more current re-write has screwed things up and everyone would have been better off by just using the older description of the property - even if it is not mathematically perfect.
I try to look at the latest description and compare it with the first in the records, if different in data and intent, I follow the trail to where the difference took place, usually a rewrite, typos seldom cause problems but rewrites often do.
jud
> In my area, I often find that the more current re-write has screwed things up and everyone would have been better off by just using the older description of the property - even if it is not mathematically perfect.
I find that writing effective, accurate descriptions is becoming a lost art among surveyors. I see a lot of new descriptions written by surveyors and based upon their surveys that are merely recitals of the bearings and distances as shown on their maps. No calls for the monuments they set, no calls to the of rights of way or other record lines, of being so many feet from and parallel to some other record line. Often in a M&B description of a parcel tied to some aliquot line of a section according to the survey, no call to the aliquot or mention of the Section at all after the obligatory mention in the preamble.
This is such a basic function that falls squarely within the practice of surveying that I don't understand how so many can manage to screw it up so badly.
> In my area, I often find that the more current re-write has screwed things up and everyone would have been better off by just using the older description of the property - even if it is not mathematically perfect.
Well, isn't your real beef with incompetent surveyors? Any capable surveyor can write a modernized description that perpetuates the original positions of corners and lines in a way that renders them more certain in the future than the original description would have been.
What you describe is not a failing of writing new descriptions. Rather it is a failing of the so called professional surveyors in the area.
Larry P
qualifiers, qualifiers, qualifiers - explain the intent of each course if possible.
:good:
And I'm finding that maps do a rather poor job of conveying intent. Maps certainly depict some things much better than a written description, but a description is superior for intent (in my opinion).
I agree
I guess it must be a regional thing but for almost every boundary survey I have done the attorneys have asked for a legal description. I have always written them according to what I, in my professional opinion, determine as the description of the property lines. I do describe monuments call out right of way widths and call for adjoiners. If I measure 199.89 when the deed calls for 200.00, but I find monuments I accept on each end, then the distance I put in the legal is 199.89. Unless I can disprove the monuments then the calls are only a pointer to the monument. Some of the worst surveying nightmares around here are legals that have been copied, owner to owner, for many years.
Andy
I agree
"Some of the worst surveying nightmares around here are legals that have been copied, owner to owner, for many years."
I don't know, I think it all stands for something. Deeds that recite the prior description verbatim are still an indicator of sorts. Though they might only indicate that there has been little or no effort to confirm the current condition of the evidence
on the ground.
Sometimes though it may ultimately just have been a waste of billable time to research, or pay a copy fee, for the description.
Descriptions that call for cardinal directions - even when the conveying instrument calls for other than 90° angles - ,flat distances, and points for corner mean that you can only count on the grantor/grantee as being the only information imparted.
I think everything still means something. At least something is getting recorded as opposed to being squirelled away in the MERS blackbox.
I often go back through several stages of legal descriptions to find out what that original line was supposed to be. What astounds me is that there is software to write legal descriptions. Each and every word on legals that I write are unique to the particular sitation and I take a lot of time to ensure that I carry the proper intent forward. Writing brand new lines is very easy, carrying past intent forward is the tricky part.
I heard another surveyor tell me that he tries to write his descriptions such that if you stripped out all of the bearing and distance calls, you would still have a retraceable description. I don't think you can always do that, but it's a good angle to approach it from.
> I try to look at the latest description and compare it with the first in the records, if different in data and intent, I follow the trail to where the difference took place, usually a rewrite, typos seldom cause problems but rewrites often do.
> jud
I do the same. Its sad to see when obvious controlling calls get dropped because a newly measured B&D is added.
In a patchwork type developed area, the B&D of a description is about %10 percent of the legal IMHO. The controlling calls to adjoiners, surveys, monuments etc is the real meat and potatoes.
I don't fully agree
I would have a hard time adjusting a line by 0.11' because there were a couple of monuments that I measured. The monument only controls when in it's original and undisturbed location. I typically call anything within 0.05' good (noted Monument Found on the plan) and hold that record distance.
I understand the concept of simply holding every monument, but they cannot all be good.
We do not write many descriptions. Most deed references are directed to the plan.
I don't fully agree
Required to show measured and record by State Statute here, we comply, whether we agree or not. Also required to show measured in seconds and hundredths, except on rare occasions, both are not shown. Some say it shows that you actually measured the line. I like it that way, keeps me from making a choice of how close is close enough, seems to be a hard thing for all to come to an agreement.
jud
I don't fully agree
What is the difference between 45 deg 45' and 45 deg 45' 15.34"? Over 1000' it is 0.07' When you are locating a pin, you are getting the exact center point every time you locate it? maybe next time you shoot it the seconds will be 31.54". All that proves is that you know how to use a calculator. If the record is 45 deg 45', why change the record because we have a fancier calculator than the original surveyor?
I agree Kent, wouldn't some sort of dignity of calls prevail? Of course I'm speaking from Texas, but B&D is far down on the scale. Some people can read and recite a deed perfectly, but can you follow the footsteps and use the intentions of the original surveyor? IMHO that's where the deed/survey lies.
I don't fully agree
Goes back to the .04 argument, even at 50', measuring from a #4 rebar to a #4 rebar, and you're going to show a difference of .04, either way, IT IS STILL ON THE REBAR!!!
We/I have to show meas. vs. record, but sometimes reality should set in, Surveyors are supposed to be professional measure'rs, but we also have to be professional surveyors. I've relayed a story many times over the years of a survey I did in El Paso TX, I was re-tracing a ± 5 acre multi-sided tract for a client that was an original tract cut out of a section of land. All 6 corners called for a 1" galv. Iron Pipe, so right off, on ANY SIDE you can measure up to 0.16' difference and still be on the pipe that is the original called for corner, but anyway I easily found 5 of the 6 pipes, all well within any tolerance, BUT as I went to the 6th corner, I found something that almost embarrassed me to be a surveyor, I found, 11 rebars all within a 1' circle, this corner of my tract was also the corner of two subdivisions, much junior to my tract, and both subdivisions called for the 1" GIP, BUT 11 rebars, there was one that they cut a crescent out of a rebar & cap in the ground to put their cap, and this was all outside of my clients fence around their tract, in the desert, sand had built up a couple feet above the bottom of the fence. I went inside my clients fence and started digging down under the fence, and low and behold, I found the original senior called for 1" GIP... I know all of the pros and cons, but I pulled all 11 rebars, tied them together w/a piece of wire and hung them from the fence corner... Surveying is much much more than who can measure the best...
I don't fully agree
:good: :good: :good: :good: :good: :good: :good: :good: :good: :good: :good:
(one for each rebar!!) 😉
JBS
"..I carry the proper intent forward. Writing brand new lines is very easy, carrying past intent forward is the tricky part."
That statement was excellent. It seems like that standard of care should be incorporated into the rules of every state licensing board; in the code of ethics, and then once again in the MTS, somehow. That was profound, to me at least.
