One biggie is that the record plat is not correct if the monuments are in another place.
After the sale of property, I would believe the location of original monuments rules.
All other monuments should and could be put in correct location by the original surveyor or he needs to correct the record drawing.
Has the entire subdivision been sold or transferred by deed since the drawing was filed for record.
More info needed. The transfer of title changes the game from correct surveyor mistakes to that of changing the record to show what is on the ground.
There must be some legal precedent in your state that has addressed this.
I have gone out and resurveyed entire unrecorded subdivisions in order to correct this kind of errors and make the unsold tracts to be shown correct and put on record in order to satisfy current legal requirements for interests the developers wanted to pursue.
"A fine mess indeed Ollie"
😉
Localise on two marks and your residuals will be zero...
... And you'll be very, very wrong. 🙂
No not serious , tongue in cheek.
Points In Error ? Or Negligence ?
Had the original points been set in error, implies that the error is within the bounds of the measuring technique. Around here the acceptable error by statute is in the range of 0.1' despite the fact that measurements can be made routinely to 0.01' or less. Therefore I alledge this is "gross error" or "negligence" and not "error".
With modern subdivision and zoning laws these "errors" can financially affect numerous reliant owners in many ways. In my opinion a court should require a correction subdivision at the expense of the original surveyors dollars or his license. If lots can be reset per the record and intent then do so. If some lots cannot be corrected then do so and compensate any victims. For the record if these are 1.000 acre lots in a 1.000 acre zone and lot 72 ends up being 0.987 acres then it is "Legally Declared" to be 1 acre forever as far as zoning issues go. There should be no need to require the owners to continually seek size variances for every time they turn around.
There is precedent for "legal lot size" in some state laws. How about yours?
For instance a 1 acre lot existed and through the years the road moved and/or was widened by ordinance or sometimes taking. This can severely affect the net area of a corner lot. That is one of the reason many surveys read:
"Gross Area 1.050 Acres"
"Right of Way 0.086 Acres"
"Net Area 0.964 Acres"
I recommend that the survey read:
"Record Lot 72 1.000 Acres"
"Surveyed Lot 72 0.987 Acres"
This requires the immediate attention of the court in it's entirety not a case by case basis.
Paul in PA
Points In Error ? Or Negligence ?
> Had the original points been set in error, implies that the error is within the bounds of the measuring technique. Around here the acceptable error by statute is in the range of 0.1' despite the fact that measurements can be made routinely to 0.01' or less. Therefore I alledge this is "gross error" or "negligence" and not "error".
>
> With modern subdivision and zoning laws these "errors" can financially affect numerous reliant owners in many ways. In my opinion a court should require a correction subdivision at the expense of the original surveyors dollars or his license.
>
> Paul in PA
Read it again LPL:
Take thier sub line of 325.14 feet and push it down 775.83 feet to a pipe they say is 0.13 North & 0.25' West and you really miss it by over a foot.
Things like a 75.00 distance measures 75.35 and a 17.41 measures 17.06 and another pipe out by 2+/- feet.
That's a gross error in my opinion.
Ralph
Every time we have a discussion like this, as with many other discussions, we have 2 camps. Those 2 camps are usually sharply divided. Something like Democrats and Republicans. How can 2 other surveyors (who aren't from the same area) come to an agreement? We have urban surveyors and rural surveyors talking about 2 feet. Around here in the rural areas, 2 feet is acceptable; in the city, it's not. You are the one that has the other evidence that would go in to making a decision in this situation. What you decide to do with it may not be what I would decide to do here in a rural area or someone else would decide to do in an urban area. All you can do is weigh the evidence at hand together with your local knowledge and make a decision.
> Every time we have a discussion like this, as with many other discussions, we have 2 camps. Those 2 camps are usually sharply divided. Something like Democrats and Republicans. How can 2 other surveyors (who aren't from the same area) come to an agreement? We have urban surveyors and rural surveyors talking about 2 feet. Around here in the rural areas, 2 feet is acceptable; in the city, it's not. You are the one that has the other evidence that would go in to making a decision in this situation. What you decide to do with it may not be what I would decide to do here in a rural area or someone else would decide to do in an urban area. All you can do is weigh the evidence at hand together with your local knowledge and make a decision.
I agree with you to a certain extent, but when you have a modern subdivision that has been cleared grubbbed and leveled and you measure a 700' line to 1:388 and that property is sold and developed, there's a problem. Once a property is subdivided and sold I consider it a suburban environment. We're not describing Hunting property here.
There is not enough metadata to determine the relative positional accuracy, but I would venture to say that +/-2 feet won't cut the mustard even under the most lax of standards.
And if it's only 4 to 6 years old, why let it morph into an Avalanche for generations to come.
Ralph
ALMOST EVERYTHING has a pattern.
I personally think the most intriguing part of surveying was decifering the "pattern" of the previous survey to see how things came to be where they are.
I have to say my best moments are the "aha" moments when a non-conforming set of monuments, just all of a sudden make sense(I see "how" it happened) . . . maybe still incorrect . . . but, suddenly making sense.
Problem with bad GPS is it might not indicate a traceable pattern like conventional surveying . . . points might be . . . just plain bad . . . maybe cause a bird took a shiet on a satellite . . . or sumtin.
OOPS
Now you ask yourself . . . "Do I feel lucky"
Do I put the corners where they "should", be? Or . . . do I ponder and consider that in 5 years property owners have now "accepted" the locations where they are . . . or worse yet, where they were originally set?
There could always be that one owner, who says that's my corner, cause that's where it was set when I bought "my" property.
This is one of the worst things about surveying.
ANYWAY, I always tended to show the "correct" position(in a subdivision especially), and indicate the "incorrect" locations as potential clouds or claims.
People buy a piece of property, in this case a subdivision lot, and depend on their "stobs" with flaggin' on 'em to represent their corners, and rightfully so. 2 feet, yeah that's probably a little much here but there isn't a problem until we make it a problem. I think it is absurd for a surveyor to put on a plat that a found pipe, is, I think he said, 0.25' N and 0.13' E!!! That is just ignorance on the surveyor's part.
Yes, I've seen the problem and what a mess it is. One of the things that happens is the GPS points are not properly measured, then sometimes differing sets are used as control for conventional equipment. The first problem is bad enough but when coupled with the second it results in strange and unquantifiable errors in position that are better understood as mistakes.
Both types of responses in this thread could be appropriate within the same subdivision.
In most states the parties are presumed to have taken possession with a view of the premises and on reliance of the actual monuments (of course this is a rebuttable presumption). It does not take any extended time period for this reliance to happen. These monuments represent the deed lines of the parcel whether in mistake or error. There is some contrary law in the case of subdivisions of small lots but I think those cases would be distinguished from the present case because here you have all the individual lots clearly monumented rather than a large area of unmonumented lots.
If lots have yet to be conveyed, then re-monumentation could (may have to) take place. But, it might require planning approval in order to accomodate the already conveyed lots that might be in the "wrong" location. This could result in fewer or less desirable lots, which of course is going to be a problem for the developer and in turn for the original surveyor (could be 10's of K or more, hope they have E&O). If an already conveyed lot is less than code, then the developer would be required to give the necessary land to that lot if possible, if not it could only be handled by a fine to the developer I would think.
Having said all that, the second surveyor is going to have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it is the first surveyor who has the measurement problem. At least in NY where we have a statute that proclaims that if a surveyor says their measurements are good, then that's prima facie evidence that they are in fact good. Designed to eliminate meaningless arguments about who is the best measurer or why the numbers are different than reported 200 years ago.
I have a few questions for the "correct position" camp:
IF you decide to call a monument "off" or "incorrect", what do you base your "correct" position on? Section corners? If so, are the section corners in the same location compared to when the subdivision was staked? Who says the section corners are the gospel truth? Block corners? If block corners, wouldn't the original surveyor set those in error too?
And no, I do not blindly accept every monument I find. They are moved by owners, utilities, etc. I do my best to answer the question "Why should I NOT accept this monument".
another wrinkle is the deed...
which will probably read something like :being lot 1 as depicted on subdivision map of "NASCAR Estates", said lot being 75x125 (I am abbreviating here).
So know if you hold a pin that's 2' off the homeowner only gets 73', which then could lead to more problems.
I think in this case since the monuments/pins haven't been relied on, I'd reset the ones that are whacked out. A tenth or so? probably not.
How does one know for sure that its an original pin anyway?
another wrinkle is the deed...
>
> How does one know for sure that its an original pin anyway?
That's the question, why does everybody assume that the pin was originally set in error? Who's to say that some devious landowner or mischievous kids didn't decide to move it.
It seems that the assumption is that these are original and in their original location and should be held.
Ralph
Thanks for chiming in Duane!
Ralph
But one Engineer told me with a big grin on his face how great his network rover is, just jump out of the truck and BLOOP BLOOP BLOOP you are all done if five minutes.
I don't trust it but maybe that's just me.
These guys doing boundary with a topo tool.
It would be like using stadia to set Lot corners back in the day.
Ralph, you are right on. Never say "never."
I retraced a Subdivision from the 80s; there was 3 tenths floating around and, frankly, they should have done a lot better than that because I retraced a subdivision from the 1950s and that guy had 2 hundredths floating around. But the typical big-box firm 1950s subdivisions will usually be more like 4 to 8 hundredths at the most. Sometimes there will be a systematic shift between the centerline control and the Lot corners. Then the 1970s rolls around and everything seems to fall apart. What changed?
The presumption is the original undisturbed monument will hold but that is not absolute.
Notify the Surveyor that is responsible for the mess and let him deal with because it his problem. The client in this case may have a cause of action. Don't just guess one way or the other and walk away.
I have seen Lot corner rebars pulled out and stuck into the fence post concrete with no damage to the cap. That usually amounts to say half a foot or so, not 2'. The centerline control should fit the map very close, if not then someone has big problems with their methods.
:good:
Here is one from Ohio...
"In making a resurvey it is the surveyor's duty to relocate the original lines and corners at the places actually established and not to run independent new lines, even though the original lines were full of errors."
Sellman v. Schaaf, 26 Ohio.App.2d 35, 41-43, 269 N.E.2d 60, 65-66 (1971)
another wrinkle is the deed...
Unfortunately in all these discussions we are only given the information supplied by the Original Post. In this case he stated "we are finding the undisturbed lot corner not being were the sub says they should be.". There are a lot of other pieces of information which are critical in making a boundary determination such as:
- Have the lots been conveyed out of original ownership? (if not then they are just metal stuck in the ground)
- If so do the owners know of the existence of the corners? (Notice)
- Have the corners been used for the construction of improvements? (Acceptance)
Unless the OP jumps back in we will never know.
