Ok, there is this neighborhood, of about 80 acres. Part of a BLM dependant resurvey from the 1930's.
And, there are about 25 deeds in the 80 acres. ie, separate parcels.
A number of them are up against the E line of one of the 40's. And, the mons are generally within 1-1/2 feet of where an abstractors drawing would place them. They are NOT on a straight line between the 40 corners. USA owns to the east.
The SE corner of the 40 was only recently set. Other plats showed it as computed, and used that computed position.
I am taking the position that 1 to 1.5' is generally within the tolerance of the day, ie, 1970's, 1980's, 1990's etc. Now, we have a 1923 Adolf Leitz transit, from San Francisco. It was used for many years, by us. We could and often DID work that was within 0.2' in 1/2 mile. In fact, that was NORMAL for us.
BUT, I digress from my story.
I am taking with this survey, (of 3 of the above deeds) as a retracement of the old stuff, and YIELDING to stuff, and telling my client that we are updating the MEASUREMENTS of yesterday's work, which in my opinion was a bit sloppy.
I tied into a bunch of existing monuments. Even rejecting one that is 0.28' out, because it is OBVIOUS that a tree pushed it SW.
I anticipate yielding to almost everything.
That's the kind of decisions we make. And liberties we sometimes have to take.
Nate
You had just as well build a fence along the staggered line as some here will be calling you a fenceline surveyor.
In this abnormal case, why not use the Government line? Clearly the intent was to go to the Government line, even if it had not been properly located at the time of the early survey. Just asking. Not positive of what I might do if in your shoes.
I can admit, it is tempting. But, there has to come a time when the monuments stay put. I call it "The concrete Principle" The longer they have been there, the harder to move they become. It does not make me particularly happy. The monuments out there, were based on the subdivision of the section.
Just set a little poor.
N
Nate, there seems to be some support of your position in the law:
WILLIS v. CAMPBELL, 500 So. 2d 300; 1986 Fla. App.
"In making a resurvey, the question is not where an entirely accurate survey would locate the lines, but where did the original survey locate such lines." Clark on Surveying and Boundaries, 2d Ed., Sec. 411, page 495; Kahn v. Delaware Securities Corporation, 114 Fla. 32, 153 So. 308; LeCompte v. Lueders, 90 Mich. 495, 51 N.W. 542; City of Racine v. Emerson, 85 Wis. 80, 55 N.W. 177; Dittrich v. Ubl, 216 Minn. 396, 13 N.W. 2d 384. As stated in 8 Am. Jur., Boundaries, Section 102, page 819: "The object of a resurvey is to furnish proof of the location of the lost lines or monuments, not to dispute the correctness of or to control the original survey. The original survey in all cases must, whenever possible, be retraced, since it cannot be disregarded or needlessly altered after property rights have been acquired in reliance upon it." It is generally held, therefore, that a resurvey that changes lines and distances and purports to correct inaccuracies or mistakes in an old plat is not competent evidence of the true line fixed by the original plat. (citations omitted)."
As somebody above has already thought, is there any occupation on the east line of this? What about the USA?
My leaning is toward the idea that the USA designed the PLSS, and should also live with it. Including it's anomalies!
N