Brian Allen, post: 362992, member: 1333 wrote: "So then you must decide how close to the record does a found pin have to be to be accepted.
I can see 0.3' or even more being acceptable in areas where properties are big. Especially in more rural settings. But once lots are 50x100' and neighbors are fighting over 0.1' and lots sell for 500k it gets dicey."
So I assume your state legislature and/or courts have finally decided the age old issue of "how far is too far"? Are the rules/laws that definitely identify "how far off is good enough" really based on parcel size and value? What are, exactly, the size and value limits for say 0.13'? I, and many others would be very interested in seeing these definitive decisions/statutes?
Ok, Ok, maybe I should have used the sarcasm font.
My point was at some point you have to decide how far is too far. If I verify a corner and find it 3 feet from record, obviously it is not accepted.
Im not going to tell someone who paid 500k for a 50x100 lot that it is really 49.6 wide in the front because I found pins set on each side within the last 10 years and now they have an unconforming lot that can't be built on. It would be some lawsuit.
When no corners are set anywhere, who knows what in the world was even used to set those corners you had found.
Dan Patterson, post: 363032, member: 1179 wrote: Just set all the corners on every one of your jobs and you can't be wrong....it sounds like your corners would be the only thing to go by?
That's another reason I always set corners....the next guy will find them and hopefully use them...
Yep. This. If it was up to me. We almost had a law years ago to require monumentation. It would take years for the benefits to come around and for things to clear up bc things are already screwy in areas. But I agree.
However it's tough bc I either give a price and go back another trip pro Bono to put in monumentation or if I take that into the price consideration I will lose the job to someone else. :-/
I was sued once by a hapless surveying company that did NOT "prove their monuments". And my pins were in the right place! I performed a boundary and topo survey for this large platted commercial lot (about 5 acres) that sat at the corner of a subdivision entrance and an arterial street. I found or set all the corners on the lot, completed the survey and eventually forgot about it.
Another survey company was hired to layout the construction of a strip mall commercial area a few months later. This particular lot had a small curve on one of the lot lines that was only about 15' in length. I had set and marked both the PC (point of curvature) and the Lot Corner, 15' away. Apparently these yahoos staked the entire project off of ONE pin...the PC. This queered the whole layout and prevented room for the proper number of parking spots. The slab had to be removed. The lawyers flocked like buzzards on a tripe-wagon.
Then I was served notice that the survey outfit that had screwed up everything was suing me for labeling a stake "PC"...because everybody knows PC means "Property Corner"....As ludicrous as it may sound, it is very difficult to explain to a bunch of non-surveyors that the stake was not improperly marked. "That's the way we've always done it" is a poor defense in court. And all of us would be hard pressed to come up with a comprehensive book of instructions that we all follow. I was fortunate enough to have a few experienced "friends" that helped me out, non-gratis, for their expert depositions.
Long story short, the suit was eventually dropped. But it cost me a couple of grand and a sleepless night or two to maintain the fact I had no culpability whatsoever in their screw-up. Prove your monuments indeed....
Rich., post: 363039, member: 10450 wrote: Yep. This. If it was up to me. We almost had a law years ago to require monumentation. It would take years for the benefits to come around and for things to clear up bc things are already screwy in areas. But I agree.
However it's tough bc I either give a price and go back another trip pro Bono to put in monumentation or if I take that into the price consideration I will lose the job to someone else. :-/
I hear ya....
I usually set them the same day (for smaller jobs), but it's not always possible to do so 100% of the time. An added benefit I find is that by attempting a complete analysis in the field I will know if I have enough evidence or if something is screwy. That gives me a chance to pickup more control (or at least look for more).
Rich., post: 363038, member: 10450 wrote: My point was at some point you have to decide how far is too far. If I verify a corner and find it 3 feet from record, obviously it is not accepted.
Im not going to tell someone who paid 500k for a 50x100 lot that it is really 49.6 wide in the front because I found pins set on each side within the last 10 years and now they have an unconforming lot that can't be built on. It would be some lawsuit.
When no corners are set anywhere, who knows what in the world was even used to set those corners you had found.
"My point was at some point you have to decide how far is too far. If I verify a corner and find it 3 feet from record, obviously it is not accepted. "
Your sole basis for rejection is that it doesn't agree with some written measurement? You might want to think about that...
Jim in AZ, post: 363080, member: 249 wrote: "My point was at some point you have to decide how far is too far. If I verify a corner and find it 3 feet from record, obviously it is not accepted. "
Your sole basis for rejection is that it doesn't agree with some written measurement? You might want to think about that...
No based on other evidence as well.
It's not that I don't accept monuments. But just bc I see a pin doesn't mean I have to accept it.
We aren't talking about old pins here. I just talked to the owner. This was set a couple weeks ago. Does that mean if I had went 2 weeks ago, my pin would be first so now the corner would be different?
I'm going to look into it more and see if I can find more things.
Rich., post: 363082, member: 10450 wrote: No based on other evidence as well.
It's not that I don't accept monuments. But just bc I see a pin doesn't mean I have to accept it.
We aren't talking about old pins here. I just talked to the owner. This was set a couple weeks ago. Does that mean if I had went 2 weeks ago, my pin would be first so now the corner would be different?
I'm going to look into it more and see if I can find more things.
It is reasonable if the owner is concerned about a recently set pin to determine whether its placement is substantially in compliance with the Deeds.
Rich., post: 363038, member: 10450 wrote: My point was at some point you have to decide how far is too far. If I verify a corner and find it 3 feet from record, obviously it is not accepted.
Im not going to tell someone who paid 500k for a 50x100 lot that it is really 49.6 wide in the front because I found pins set on each side within the last 10 years and now they have an unconforming lot that can't be built on. It would be some lawsuit.
When no corners are set anywhere, who knows what in the world was even used to set those corners you had found.
Keep in mind the area I work in is totally different and maybe I just don't understand. If you don't trust two irons that are 4 tenths of a foot different from the record. And the reason for not trusting them is because you don't know the basis of what they used to set them, and there are no other corners, how do you establish the lot in the right spot?
Jones, post: 363087, member: 10458 wrote: Keep in mind the area I work in is totally different and maybe I just don't understand. If you don't trust two irons that are 4 tenths of a foot different from the record. And the reason for not trusting them is because you don't know the basis of what they used to set them, and there are no other corners, how do you establish the lot in the right spot?
Yes I'm sure it definitely is a difference in local procedures.
Half the areas around here the ONLY thing tieing in corners are old surveys. Sometimes a pin is found where a surveyor recently determined a corner to be from whatever surveys he was able to dig up in that area.
4 tenths here would start a riot.
So strange. Just picked up a new magazine to read and here's what I find....
I also ordered the book 'The Pin Cushion Effect' by Jeff Lucas. Interested to read it.
Jones, post: 363087, member: 10458 wrote: Keep in mind the area I work in is totally different and maybe I just don't understand. If you don't trust two irons that are 4 tenths of a foot different from the record. And the reason for not trusting them is because you don't know the basis of what they used to set them, and there are no other corners, how do you establish the lot in the right spot?
The modernization by writing of title transfers came about in the 17th century by the Statute of Frauds. Then in the new world we started a system of recording and indexing bringing about constructive notice. Consequently the title side is complete and searchable so objective analysis can be made. The law is mainly statutory and fairly certain and not subject to tinkering.
The location side is still stuck in the Middle Ages dependent on actual notice of obvious physical boundaries and oral agreements. The law is mainly common law rules which is variable and somewhat difficult to predict outcomes. It depends on fact inference and determination which can vary greatly among different courts. Hidden monuments and lack of records about who set what when and why adds to the uncertainty.
There is a RLS around here, if he finds a iron set by someone else, off by 0.2' he will not use it and set a new one. Then he will call the surveyor who set the iron and tell him that his iron is not correct.
I helped the guy for a short time and he wanted me to make the phone calls. I told him I wouldn't do it and went someplace else.
Rich., post: 363038, member: 10450 wrote: My point was at some point you have to decide how far is too far. If I verify a corner and find it 3 feet from record, obviously it is not accepted.
Although the magnitude of the difference between the location where you actually found a monument and the location where you expected to find it may be an indicator of some legally sufficient reason to reject the found monument, it is not sufficient in itself.
This statement and a couple similar previous ones appear to be making the point that at some point, magnitude is not only a sufficient reason, but a compelling reason to reject a monument location. The responses advising you to rethink that opinion are right on. I've seen plenty of occasions where a monument 3', 5', even 100' from the expected position prevailed over the position calculated from deed dimensions and some known but distant point.
In a later post, you state that you have other evidence to back up your decision to reject based on the magnitude of difference, but I still have the impression that it is the positional difference, and not necessarily the other evidence that was the main basis for your decision. If you have evidence that the monument was moved from its original position, or if it is a monument of a recent resurvey and you have evidence (other than position alone) that it was set by improper methods or by mistake, then that is the reason to reject. Positional difference can point you in that direction, but it doesn't get you there on its own.
Rich., post: 363038, member: 10450 wrote: Im not going to tell someone who paid 500k for a 50x100 lot that it is really 49.6 wide in the front because I found pins set on each side within the last 10 years and now they have an unconforming lot that can't be built on. It would be some lawsuit.
I've seen plenty of times where that is exactly what the surveyor had to, or should have done. Again, the magnitude of the differences between found and expected positions are meaningless in themselves. Depending upon when the blocks were established, a 0.4' shortage in lot width is completely reasonable. As a retracing surveyor, your job is to find the location of the originally established boundaries where they had been established, not necessarily where they were supposed to have been established.
There is a greater liability in re-establishing parcel corners based on deed dimensions from distant points without carefully considering the closer but more difficult to quantify evidence, than there is in re-establishing those corners according to a careful review and use of all such evidence. In fact, a modern measurement of 49.6' across the frontage of a record 50' wide lot can actually be very good confirmation of the veracity of other, closer evidence.
You should also bear in mind that a lot of an old subdivision that is relatively close to current zoning minimums is grandfathered in for compliance purposes. Also, most zoning ordinances are expressed in whole numbers (i.e. 50' min width; 5 acre min area; etc.). If that's the case, 49.6' is 50'. If the person at the planning counter that you're dealing with doesn't believe it, go borrow any 9th grade math or science book and show the part to the planner where significant figures is taught.
Rich., post: 363038, member: 10450 wrote: When no corners are set anywhere, who knows what in the world was even used to set those corners you had found.
Most old subdivisions, even when the maps for them do not show monuments having been set at the lot corners, did, either when the subdivision was first surveyed, or shortly thereafter when it was being developed, did have some manner of markers placed at the corners by the surveyor. Often , they were just wood stakes. If you are lucky, have knowledge of the actual history (whether part of the official record or more often, not), and are diligent, you can sometimes find the remnants of these original corner stakes. In many parts of the country, surveyors used redwood or some other type of decay resistant wood stakes, and remains of them can be found more than 100 - 150 years after they were set. If so, they will hold in most jurisdictions whether shown on the original maps and deeds or not.
Secondarily, if there are no such stake remnants remaining, but many of the site improvements that now exist are known or can be shown to have been placed about the time the subdivision was made or not long after, those improvements are often better evidence of the original lines than are dimensions from a known but distant point such as a block corner or subdivision corner.
Before rejecting more recent monuments based on positional differences between found and expected positions, you had better contact the surveyor who set them to ask what evidence that placement was based on, and what equipment and methods were used to measure in the positions. Quite often, depending upon equipment and methods, a few tenths might be a reasonably expected positional difference. If those previous surveyors used the same controlling points as you are, measured the same courses, and used acceptable methods but reported different bearings and distances that can be attributed to differences in equipment and associated methods, then you don't have a good reason to reject the existing monuments. If the previous surveyors used acceptable methods to an acceptable standard of care for that place and time, then the landowners had and continue to have the right to rely on those marked positions. If you can't accept that, then you must also accept that your points will be useless junk when another surveyor, with technology that is 10 years better than yours finds that your points are unacceptable because they are .05' away from where he expected to find them and because those lots are now worth $2,000,000 each rather than the measly $500,000 that they were worth when you were on the scene.
Rich., post: 363095, member: 10450 wrote: I also ordered the book 'The Pin Cushion Effect' by Jeff Lucas. Interested to read it.
I highly recommend that book. For best results, when finished reading it, wait a few weeks then read it again. Repeat as necessary.
Brian Allen, post: 363119, member: 1333 wrote: I highly recommend that book. For best results, when finished reading it, wait a few weeks then read it again. Repeat as necessary.
Rich,
While you are waiting for your copy of 'Pinchusions', I suggest this google Book:
"A Manual of Land Surveying" by Francis Hodgman, Climax, Mich. (1897). Take a look at the bottom of page 311: "The Rights, Duties, and Responsibilities of Surveyors"
https://books.google.com/books?id=zWEOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA311#v=onepage&q&f=false
DDSM:beer:
I think you have to do your homework on any survey. From my standpoint, if you accept a monument, you own it.
billvhill, post: 363142, member: 8398 wrote: I think you have to do your homework on any survey. From my standpoint, if you accept a monument, you own it.
If you reject a monument you own it, there's really no escaping your responsibility.
Where do you stop? Seriously?
In 1865 a government-contracted crew creates Section 32. In 1868 a small town is created which includes the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 32--40 acres. But there are four owners of that 40 each having an aliquot presumed to be 10 acres and presumed to be 330 feet north-south by 1320 feet east-west. Four plats are created each having four blocks with adjoining streets and alleys and the numbers all total to precisely 330 x 1320. Of course, those four plats have different dates on them. Over time numerous surveys have been performed and filed for perpetuity in the public records. Now, it's 2016 and you get a call to survey Lot 3 of Block 2 of Upper Lower Addition to the City of Bug Tussle. You find no surveys having been performed in that block. However, there are surveys on file in Blocks 1 and 3 of Upper Lower Addition. Also, in numerous locations in Lower Lower Addition and in Lower Upper Addition, plus a few more distant ones in Upper Upper Addition.
Do you (1): a) Shoot the monuments in Blocks 1 and 3 of Upper Lower Addition then proportion your subject lot in Block 2 by giving equal weight to error across lots, streets and alleys? Or b) give streets and alleys their recorded widths and only proportion lots.? Or c) give lots their recorded widths and only proportion streets and alleys?
Do you (2): Back up to find the four corners of Upper Lower Addition, ignore all recorded surveys therein and use one of the three proportioning methods above to arrive at your solution?
Do you (3): Back up to the four corners of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 32, ignore all recorded surveys therein and use of the three proportioning methods above to arrive at your solution?
Do you (4): Back up to the exterior of said Section 32, subdivide per "THE GOSPEL" to discover the "true" corners of the aliquot part that became Upper Lower Addition and then proportion by your preferred method to arrive at your solution?
Do you (5): Back up to the exterior of the Township/Range and decide where Section 32 was truly supposed to be based on the Government Field Notes then begin your procedure from there?
Do you (6): Re-establish the base point of the Sixth Principal Meridan and 40 degrees latitude to determine the "true" location of your specific Township/Range before performing everything in (5), (4), (3), (2) and (1)?
Holy Cow, post: 363187, member: 50 wrote: Where do you stop? Seriously?
Now, it's 2016 and you get a call to survey Lot 3 of Block 2 of Upper Lower Addition to the City of Bug Tussle.
Do you (7): Pull out your copy of Hodgman's 1897 Manual and retrace the established boundaries to the best of your ability?
DDSM:beer:
DELETED USER, post: 363102, member: 8983 wrote: There is a RLS around here, if he finds a iron set by someone else, off by 0.2' he will not use it and set a new one. Then he will call the surveyor who set the iron and tell him that his iron is not correct.
I helped the guy for a short time and he wanted me to make the phone calls. I told him I wouldn't do it and went someplace else.
This sounds like a surveyor around here. he once called a guy and told him his pin was by 0.05' and that he needed to come move it.