The attached policy is something that is being advanced by the county Surveyor of the City and County of San Francisco. I was wonder if other surveyors might have any comments on the proposed technical requirements please see below
INTRODUCTION
Boundary surveys completed in San Francisco are subject to procedures and nuances unique to this City. The historical and physical realities of the City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) mandate that certain customs and practices be formalized and implemented consistently to ensure that continued stable and reliable land records are maintained and promoted. To this end, the following technical specifications are required.
RETRACEMENT SURVEY POLICY
Surveys presumed to reflect Deed
When a surveyor submits a survey to the CCSF for review and the subject property is a retracement of lands described by metes and bounds, the survey shall reflect the measurements and boundary calls as those calls appear in the deed of record.
Exceptions
Evidence extrinsic to the record deed to aid a boundary resolution will be examined on a case by case basis. The following guidelines have been found consistent with the historical practice of surveying in this community, but are not conclusive or meant to preclude any private property rights or any other rights of the City and County of San Francisco or the State of California.
Exception 1: Deed Calls at Variance From Long Occupation
If the physical occupation on the subject property is discrepant with the written deed and the Surveyor proposes a resolution based upon the physical occupation, a survey shall show the relationship (by dimensions on the survey map) between the resolved boundary location and the
PRELIMINARY
(2/27/2014)
A-2
record deed location. At a minimum, the following1 should be addressed in the proposed resolution:
? Title research that includes McEnerney deeds2 for the subject parcel and all adjoiners.
? Field measurements documenting the present location of improvements along the full width of the block. And, a comparison of this information with that shown on historical surveys of known provenance.3
? The location of the physical occupation of the subject property and all adjoiners.
? A finding that current evidence of occupation supports, or at the very least, does not contradict the historical evidence of occupation dating back to era of the original McEnerny judgments.
In such cases, the Surveyor may, consistent with his or her professional opinion, monument and hold as the property boundary either the record deed line or the occupation line. However, in doing so, the survey shall be unmistakably clear which of the two lines is purported to be the property boundary (deed or occupation).
The rationale behind this policy is that the use of extrinsic evidence is supporting a conclusion that title never changed ownership, but rather that the reliably documented historical occupation
1 PLS Act Sec. 8762(d)(2), requiring the submittal of specific requested information where surveys have been previously performed by others.
2 Research should extend back in time to a point of common ownership of the parent tract. Because land records prior to the 1906 fire were largely destroyed, the McEnerny decrees to establish title are often the earliest recorded documents in the CCSF.
3 This would include but not be limited to the Block Diagrams on file with the CCSF. Original CCSF field notes dating from the era of the 1906 fire have been found to support the information portrayed on many of the Block Diagrams. PRELIMINARY
(2/27/2014)
A-3
is consistent with the true intent of the parties as expressed in light of the circumstances of the 1906 earthquake and fire that necessitated the McEnerny deeds.4
Exception 2: Statutory Unwritten Rights
These cases are not correctable by the surveyor. They are characterized by relatively shorter (5+ years) occupation. An actual transfer of title may have occurred, but the City shall recognize such transfer only after formal judicial action (quiet title) or agreement between the concerned parties (grant of fee ownership, easement, etc.).
Exception 3: Defective Deeds
A deed is presumed to have a defect in cases where the discrepancy between the deed and occupation is explained from evidence other than historical occupation alone. Such cases include among others, problems created through the chronology of McEnerney judgments, and subdivisions of property containing some deficiency. Such defects may be, but are not necessarily, correctable by the Surveyor. Such retracements of shall be based on substantial record evidence that clearly explains why the evidence invariably supports the Surveyor’s conclusion. The explanation may incorporate graphic and/or narrative formats, but must reach a logical conclusion that precludes all other explanations. The City and County Surveyor shall review the evidence and he or she agrees with the proposed resolution and determines that the correction would not be harmful to the public interest, may at his or her sole discretion, assist in correcting the defect.
4 Civ. Code Sec. 1069, establishing that a grant is to be interpreted in favor of the grantee. See also Code of Civ. Proc. Sec. 2077, establishing principles for construing doubtful or uncertain descriptions of real property. PRELIMINARY
(2/27/2014
I don't survey in California anymore, and [sarcasm]it is wonderful if the deeds accurately reflect what is on the ground[/sarcasm] but that bit about having to match deed calls seems heavy handed. Better than half of the older deeds I work with don't close by a considerable margin and most if not all of them do not match bearings and/or distances. My planning commission is sounding better all the time. They don't tell a surveyor how to survey, just in what format they require submissions.
