Maybe you hold the angle. But a better solution would be to go find some more monuments to define the lines of those roads.
That's a way to look at it here is another:
If a parcel was either grandfathered in or created through a planning/zoning process and approved then it's a conforming parcel. If some subsequent measurement comes a bit short or the acreage doesn't quite calculate it shouldn't matter, the parcel was properly created through the approval process and they shouldn't be able to reverse that. I suppose if there was some fraud involved (bad faith) they could reverse the status of a parcel but otherwise the parcel should stand.
This is not saying that some planner or other public official won't try to go with some math absolute. If they do I think a good attorney could straighten them out, provide some education on the subject.
There was a case in Park City, Utah a few years back. A lot had been through the process and approved. The lot happen to be on the top of a hill. The owner applied for a building permit and was given one. After the owner had spent about $300,000 starting his foundation and framing a planner decided the lot violated the ridge line ordinance (can't build on the ridge line where the structure sticks into the sky as viewed from certain roads and other areas). The county red tagged the building and pulled his permit. It took awhile but the Judge straightened it all out. I can't remember all the details but I think the owner was made more than whole and is now living in the house. I think about it every time I drive by the house on the interstate.
Rich., post: 348072, member: 10450 wrote: I don't think anywhere says you need to accept found pins with caps unless they were set by the original surveyor during the original survey...
These are questions I would have had several years ago.
First consider "Who is the original surveyor?"
Some in PLSS say it's the GLO, period. Doesn't matter if the section has since been divided by others. They think if they are surveying the S 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of the section, it needs a "proper" (Chapter 3) section breakdown.
I strongly disagree with that, though I can't say I always did. Even if the GLO protracted lines within the section, they didn't survey them and never actually established them but merely depicted where they intended the lines to be. Chapter 3 is clear that the local surveyor is performing the part contemplated by law when he divides the section, placing marks on the ground. The GLO intended to make that section 640 acres and square except to the extent they accounted for curvature and convergence. I've never found a section to match the plat.
All surveyors have come to accept that when you find an original GLO monument, you accept it where it is regardless of what the township plat showed. Significantly fewer have taken note of å¤3-76 (1973) or å¤3-132 (2009). å¤137(2009) states in part: "The protracted position of the legal subdivision corner on the survey plat is merely the first step in fixing the position of the corner. The corner position is fixed by running and marking the lines."
If the local surveyor performs the surveys to subdivide sections, and corner positions are fixed by marks placed by field survey, then the first surveyor to place those marks is the original surveyor for that subdivision.
American Jurisprudence 2d, Boundaries, å¤51, Resurveys, tells us "... the surveyor's only duty is to relocate, upon the best evidence obtainable, the courses and lines at the same place where originally located by the first surveyor on the ground."
Not the first surveyor to draw lines on a map, nor the first person to describe lines in a deed. The lines and corners are not established until they are intentionally placed on the ground.
The original surveyor for any particular point is the first surveyor to have placed that point on the ground. In most locations, patents were issued many years before surveyors were licensed and there were not enough government surveyors to keep up with demand to mark the lines of patented lands. Entrymen often had need to mark their properties before government surveyors could respond. In such cases, the entrymen themselves often were the original surveyors of their land and their marks must be evaluated by the same considerations given to marks established by surveyors.
Did they base placement on the correct controlling points? Did they appropriate methods? Have those marks been recognized as marking the true lines and corners?
The 2009 Manual restates many principles equally applicable to private surveys (whether or not PLSS) and federal authority surveys. å¤3-137 in part states: "The law presupposes the fact taught by experience that measurements of lands cannot be repeated with absolute precision and that the work of no two surveyors will exactly agree... A decision to set aside previously fixed local survey legal subdivision corners must be supported by evidence that goes beyond mere demonstration of technical error."
Your calculated position differs from the last guy's monument. If the difference is 0.04', most of us accept it without further consideration, but what if the difference is 0.4', 4', or 40'? For many, the magnitude of that difference may be the sole basis for their decision to accept or call it off. The truth is, you don't yet know enough to be certain that you are looking at mere technical error or something else.
Within a certain magnitude, which varies depending upon specific circumstances, the reason for the difference doesn't matter and almost certainly is some manner of minor technical error, so we're comfortable accepting the monument as the corner. Beyond that (and it varies by individual) surveyors begin to feel queasy about accepting an existing monument. If it's a fence post, some begin to hyperventilate. There are those so resolute in their opinion that "a fence post is not a proper survey monument" that they won't give it a second thought. Likewise, beyond a certain magnitude, many will presume it is prima facie that the previous surveyor made a blunder or did not follow proper procedures.
In fact, magnitude itself rarely matters. It may be indicative of other considerations, but alone is not a deciding factor whether to accept or reject a monument. Courts consider magnitude only when indicative of gross error. Gross error is defined very differently by courts and surveyors. Courts consider gross error to be on the scale of 1/3 to 1/2 (and sometimes more) of the area reported to be within a tract of described or surveyed land. The error must be so great that the resultant parcel bears little or no resemblance to that of a description or reported in a prior survey. A surveyor discovers an error of 1' in a 100' and declares it unacceptable and either a case of exceedingly poor measurement practices, or a blunder. It's the courts opinion that matters.
Anything less than gross error, unless it has further explanation is a mere demonstration of technical error.
Let's move on to methods. Say you discern that the previous surveyor rather than establishing the C 1/4 at the carefully measured intersection of straight lines between opposing 1/4 corners, and then further dividing for the 1/16 that was subject of the survey by finding the midpoints of the 1/4 lines and the intersection of those, instead set a picket next to the nearest 1/4 corner monument and measured 1320' from the nearest section corner, turned 90 and measured another 1320 and called that the interior 1/16? Or in setting the C 1/4, rather than the intersection, just ran one of the lines between 1/4 corners and set the C 1/4 at the midpoint of that line? Remember Dykes v Arnold (129 P 3d 257, 204 Or App 154)?
That the original surveyor did not follow the precise procedure prescribed by the BLM/GLO, or by some textbook may not matter. The question here is was the method reasonable and appropriate to the situation? The answer to that will depend upon specific circumstances ranging from the nature of the properties to the level of expertise expected of that previous surveyor (i.e. if the entryman was the surveyor, the level of care in the choice and application of methods may not be as high as that expected of a federal, county, or other local licensed surveyor), to consideration of locally accepted practices for the time and place. Depending upon the full set of circumstances, that point set 1320 x 1320 from the section corner may be the fixed 1/16 corner.
Likewise, a surveyor lays out the East 100' or a parcel with a record width of 200', but he finds that the parent parcel is actually 203' wide, so he sets the corner at 101.5' because the grantor told him that his intent was to split the property and give each of his 2 kids half. Many will adamantly argue that in a resurvey, upon finding that previous surveyor's monument, it is proper to reject it because he should have followed the deed and laid out 100.00'.
The counter arguments are the record width of the parent parcel was 200', so the intent expressed in the deed as the E 100' was the same as saying the E 1/2 of the parcel, or at best, it's an ambiguity resolved by parol evidence provided by the common grantor.
If you're the second surveyor, the argument of what should be laid out is academic because for that second surveyor, his only duty is to relocate, upon the best evidence obtainable, the courses and lines at the same place where originally located by the first surveyor on the ground. It is not to report where, in your opinion, the lines or points were supposed to have been placed.
It's true that the points set and map made by a surveyor is the expression of one's opinion, and that professional opinions can legitimately vary. But it is absolutely wrong to say it's just an opinion. Any surveyor who says or holds that view is wrong, stating their opinion is of little or no value, and is making an admission that their license was issued by mistake. A surveyor's opinion is not just an opinion, it is supposed to be a well-reasoned professional opinion based upon the law and based upon proper consideration of all reasonably obtainable evidence. In the vast majority of instances, landowners and others will accept the surveyor's as correct and it will never be challenged in court.
If never challenged in court, whether that opinion is well-reasoned and properly based on law and evidence or not, that surveyor is de facto the judge and jury. If it does go to court and the surveyor's opinion loses to other facts, then it is just an opinion.
eapls2708, post: 348269, member: 589 wrote: These are questions I would have had several years ago.
First consider "Who is the original surveyor?"
Some in PLSS say it's the GLO, period. Doesn't matter if the section has since been divided by others. They think if they are surveying the S 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of the section, it needs a "proper" (Chapter 3) section breakdown.
I strongly disagree with that, though I can't say I always did. Even if the GLO protracted lines within the section, they didn't survey them and never actually established them but merely depicted where they intended the lines to be. Chapter 3 is clear that the local surveyor is performing the part contemplated by law when he divides the section, placing marks on the ground. The GLO intended to make that section 640 acres and square except to the extent they accounted for curvature and convergence. I've never found a section to match the plat.
All surveyors have come to accept that when you find an original GLO monument, you accept it where it is regardless of what the township plat showed. Significantly fewer have taken note of å¤3-76 (1973) or å¤3-132 (2009). å¤137(2009) states in part: "The protracted position of the legal subdivision corner on the survey plat is merely the first step in fixing the position of the corner. The corner position is fixed by running and marking the lines."
If the local surveyor performs the surveys to subdivide sections, and corner positions are fixed by marks placed by field survey, then the first surveyor to place those marks is the original surveyor for that subdivision.
American Jurisprudence 2d, Boundaries, å¤51, Resurveys, tells us "... the surveyor's only duty is to relocate, upon the best evidence obtainable, the courses and lines at the same place where originally located by the first surveyor on the ground."
Not the first surveyor to draw lines on a map, nor the first person to describe lines in a deed. The lines and corners are not established until they are intentionally placed on the ground.
The original surveyor for any particular point is the first surveyor to have placed that point on the ground. In most locations, patents were issued many years before surveyors were licensed and there were not enough government surveyors to keep up with demand to mark the lines of patented lands. Entrymen often had need to mark their properties before government surveyors could respond. In such cases, the entrymen themselves often were the original surveyors of their land and their marks must be evaluated by the same considerations given to marks established by surveyors.
Did they base placement on the correct controlling points? Did they appropriate methods? Have those marks been recognized as marking the true lines and corners?
The 2009 Manual restates many principles equally applicable to private surveys (whether or not PLSS) and federal authority surveys. å¤3-137 in part states: "The law presupposes the fact taught by experience that measurements of lands cannot be repeated with absolute precision and that the work of no two surveyors will exactly agree... A decision to set aside previously fixed local survey legal subdivision corners must be supported by evidence that goes beyond mere demonstration of technical error."
Your calculated position differs from the last guy's monument. If the difference is 0.04', most of us accept it without further consideration, but what if the difference is 0.4', 4', or 40'? For many, the magnitude of that difference may be the sole basis for their decision to accept or call it off. The truth is, you don't yet know enough to be certain that you are looking at mere technical error or something else.
Within a certain magnitude, which varies depending upon specific circumstances, the reason for the difference doesn't matter and almost certainly is some manner of minor technical error, so we're comfortable accepting the monument as the corner. Beyond that (and it varies by individual) surveyors begin to feel queasy about accepting an existing monument. If it's a fence post, some begin to hyperventilate. There are those so resolute in their opinion that "a fence post is not a proper survey monument" that they won't give it a second thought. Likewise, beyond a certain magnitude, many will presume it is prima facie that the previous surveyor made a blunder or did not follow proper procedures.
In fact, magnitude itself rarely matters. It may be indicative of other considerations, but alone is not a deciding factor whether to accept or reject a monument. Courts consider magnitude only when indicative of gross error. Gross error is defined very differently by courts and surveyors. Courts consider gross error to be on the scale of 1/3 to 1/2 (and sometimes more) of the area reported to be within a tract of described or surveyed land. The error must be so great that the resultant parcel bears little or no resemblance to that of a description or reported in a prior survey. A surveyor discovers an error of 1' in a 100' and declares it unacceptable and either a case of exceedingly poor measurement practices, or a blunder. It's the courts opinion that matters.
Anything less than gross error, unless it has further explanation is a mere demonstration of technical error.
Let's move on to methods. Say you discern that the previous surveyor rather than establishing the C 1/4 at the carefully measured intersection of straight lines between opposing 1/4 corners, and then further dividing for the 1/16 that was subject of the survey by finding the midpoints of the 1/4 lines and the intersection of those, instead set a picket next to the nearest 1/4 corner monument and measured 1320' from the nearest section corner, turned 90 and measured another 1320 and called that the interior 1/16? Or in setting the C 1/4, rather than the intersection, just ran one of the lines between 1/4 corners and set the C 1/4 at the midpoint of that line? Remember Dykes v Arnold (129 P 3d 257, 204 Or App 154)?
That the original surveyor did not follow the precise procedure prescribed by the BLM/GLO, or by some textbook may not matter. The question here is was the method reasonable and appropriate to the situation? The answer to that will depend upon specific circumstances ranging from the nature of the properties to the level of expertise expected of that previous surveyor (i.e. if the entryman was the surveyor, the level of care in the choice and application of methods may not be as high as that expected of a federal, county, or other local licensed surveyor), to consideration of locally accepted practices for the time and place. Depending upon the full set of circumstances, that point set 1320 x 1320 from the section corner may be the fixed 1/16 corner.
Likewise, a surveyor lays out the East 100' or a parcel with a record width of 200', but he finds that the parent parcel is actually 203' wide, so he sets the corner at 101.5' because the grantor told him that his intent was to split the property and give each of his 2 kids half. Many will adamantly argue that in a resurvey, upon finding that previous surveyor's monument, it is proper to reject it because he should have followed the deed and laid out 100.00'.
The counter arguments are the record width of the parent parcel was 200', so the intent expressed in the deed as the E 100' was the same as saying the E 1/2 of the parcel, or at best, it's an ambiguity resolved by parol evidence provided by the common grantor.
If you're the second surveyor, the argument of what should be laid out is academic because for that second surveyor, his only duty is to relocate, upon the best evidence obtainable, the courses and lines at the same place where originally located by the first surveyor on the ground. It is not to report where, in your opinion, the lines or points were supposed to have been placed.
It's true that the points set and map made by a surveyor is the expression of one's opinion, and that professional opinions can legitimately vary. But it is absolutely wrong to say it's just an opinion. Any surveyor who says or holds that view is wrong, stating their opinion is of little or no value, and is making an admission that their license was issued by mistake. A surveyor's opinion is not just an opinion, it is supposed to be a well-reasoned professional opinion based upon the law and based upon proper consideration of all reasonably obtainable evidence. In the vast majority of instances, landowners and others will accept the surveyor's as correct and it will never be challenged in court.
If never challenged in court, whether that opinion is well-reasoned and properly based on law and evidence or not, that surveyor is de facto the judge and jury. If it does go to court and the surveyor's opinion loses to other facts, then it is just an opinion.
That is why I said professional opinion.
Also to me the "east half" and "east 100" written in a deed are two very different things legally if challenged in court.
Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
You say that the "original" monuments you found were "originally stone monuments". Are they still the stone monuments or has someone replaced them with something else?
Next, consider the original placement of stone monuments. Did they have a specific point like a chiseled X or a brass pin/nail at top/center that the original surveyor took great care ensuring was placed precisely the distances he reported to adjacent block corner monuments? Or were they typical 4"x4" or 6"x6" unmarked stone monuments placed just carefully enough that the measurements to adjacent monuments fell on the monument and hopefully somewhere near the middle?
If they've been replaced, did the surveyor who replaced them do so with the benefit of the stone monuments still being in place, or did he replace them according to reported dimensions to other monuments in the area? If the stones were still there, did he take care to place his new monuments precisely at the location of where the center of the stones were, or was his prime concern that he ensure that the resulting distance between his new monuments matched record?
What type of equipment and methods were used in the original survey of the blocks? What equipment and methods were used in the 1931 survey?
Did the previous recent surveyor look at other, more localized evidence of the line and corner locations than you are considering? That is, you are basing your decision on the record relationship to two monuments, the closest of which looks to be about 150' to the closest corner of the subject property. Might the other surveyor have found something at or near the corner positions you are disputing or along the lines that converge at those corners?
You appear to be basing your opinion only on the relationship to the nearest block corners to the East. Why aren't you looking at the relationships to monuments to the West as well?
If the original survey is from sometime prior to 1931, and the house was pre-existing as shown in the 1931 survey, do you think that it's possible that the original lot corners were in place in 1931, and if so, wouldn't the measurements of that survey from the lines to the house be better evidence of the original lot corners than are the far more distant block corners?
You may have some or all of these bases covered and were just not showing it all to keep your drawing simple. But in using it as an example of why you are rejecting the two pins at question, you aren't showing nearly enough information to support that decision.
Professional opinions often legitimately vary. Just be certain that you've considered all of the evidence reasonably obtainable in the proper lights according to the statute and case law in your state before you give an opinion that someone else is wrong.
In my experience, 0.6' from record is not an unreasonable distance to find evidence of an original corner within a block of a subdivision originally surveyed sometime well before WWII.
eapls2708, post: 348277, member: 589 wrote: You say that the "original" monuments you found were "originally stone monuments". Are they still the stone monuments or has someone replaced them with something else?
Next, consider the original placement of stone monuments. Did they have a specific point like a chiseled X or a brass pin/nail at top/center that the original surveyor took great care ensuring was placed precisely the distances he reported to adjacent block corner monuments? Or were they typical 4"x4" or 6"x6" unmarked stone monuments placed just carefully enough that the measurements to adjacent monuments fell on the monument and hopefully somewhere near the middle?
If they've been replaced, did the surveyor who replaced them do so with the benefit of the stone monuments still being in place, or did he replace them according to reported dimensions to other monuments in the area? If the stones were still there, did he take care to place his new monuments precisely at the location of where the center of the stones were, or was his prime concern that he ensure that the resulting distance between his new monuments matched record?
What type of equipment and methods were used in the original survey of the blocks? What equipment and methods were used in the 1931 survey?
Did the previous recent surveyor look at other, more localized evidence of the line and corner locations than you are considering? That is, you are basing your decision on the record relationship to two monuments, the closest of which looks to be about 150' to the closest corner of the subject property. Might the other surveyor have found something at or near the corner positions you are disputing or along the lines that converge at those corners?
You appear to be basing your opinion only on the relationship to the nearest block corners to the East. Why aren't you looking at the relationships to monuments to the West as well?
If the original survey is from sometime prior to 1931, and the house was pre-existing as shown in the 1931 survey, do you think that it's possible that the original lot corners were in place in 1931, and if so, wouldn't the measurements of that survey from the lines to the house be better evidence of the original lot corners than are the far more distant block corners?
You may have some or all of these bases covered and were just not showing it all to keep your drawing simple. But in using it as an example of why you are rejecting the two pins at question, you aren't showing nearly enough information to support that decision.
Professional opinions often legitimately vary. Just be certain that you've considered all of the evidence reasonably obtainable in the proper lights according to the statute and case law in your state before you give an opinion that someone else is wrong.
In my experience, 0.6' from record is not an unreasonable distance to find evidence of an original corner within a block of a subdivision originally surveyed sometime well before WWII.
Those are the closest monuments set during the original subdivision. :-/ they did them on the block corners on all the NE corners of the intersections. They have X's on them.
Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
I agree with the other guys. You hold the monuments you found, but rather than forcing a closure to the calculated angle point on Weaver, you need to look for physical evidence of the East line of Weaver as it was actually established on the ground.
Nah, I've never seen anything like that..........
One corner,,,,,,,one monument......one position.
Many years ago, I worked for a company that had its main office in Tacoma and I worked out of a satellite office in Bremerton. The LS I worked for was a good guy (and exceedingly patient with me at times), but his maps showed pretty much what you are talking about and the end result was that someone reading the map got the impression that he was holding the record geometry and calling found irons off by some relatively small amount but you couldn't quite be sure.
Another surveyor that I know around here and have great respect for looks at it very differently. He argues that showing these relationships from calculated positions to found mon positions, one is showing the degree of agreement. He's a very bright guy and has been surveying since I was still in the oven, so I never presume that he is wrong on an issue where I initially disagree until I thoroughly review my own opinion.
In this case, I think that he can look at such a map and take into account the expected accuracies and precision of the equipment and methods prevalent at the time each found monument was placed together with the date of the map he may be evaluating and rather quickly come to the conclusion that the surveyor of that map is indicating a poor degree of agreement at one location, a fairly good degree of agreement at another, and at yet another, where the differences are clearly within the expected error ellipses of the newer and the older work, he would see that as reporting the found monument as "right on" even though the map might say it's 0.2' from the calc position. In his opinion, it's no different than not reporting a difference in positions, but instead reporting "measured" and "record" dimensions along the lines.
While I can see his point, I don't think that it is appropriate on a map intended for public filing as it is a less intuitive way of reporting differences and for non-surveyors, and even most surveyors, leaves the question hanging "Is the monument marking the corner or isn't it?"
IMO, most people can understand that I measured a line to be a slightly different direction or distance than what the record said easier than they could understand an explanation of positional accuracies, expected tolerances, etc. At least I feel more comfortable explaining the differences in measurement reflected by differing bearings and distances while being able to give a definitive "yes" or "no" to the question of whether a particular monument is at the corner. I also feel that a map labeled in this way is clearer in conveying that opinion as well.
in re: E 100 vs E 1/2
Given the facts I presented, are you sure about that?
Because of the inherent difficulty in precisely reproducing another's previous measurements, anytime the description depends upon a cited measurement, there is the possibility, even the likelihood of finding an extrinsic ambiguity.
If the record width of the parent parcel was 200' when the E 100' description was written and your measurements or other measurements subsequent to that description find that the actual width of the parent parcel is something other than 200', it automatically raises the question "If the grantor had known that the parcel was actually 203' wide, would he have written it as the E 101.5' or as the E 1/2 instead of the E 100'?" It's an inherent ambiguity.
The purpose of an original survey is to give effect to the intent of the original parties. A deed description which appears to describe that intent, but for which minor questions might arise when the description is applied to the ground, can be clarified with appropriate extrinsic evidence.
If the line has not yet been marked, and the original grantor is telling the original surveyor that the intent of conveying 100' of a 200' lot is to convey half the lot, and informed of that, when the original surveyor finds to 200' lot to be wider than the record 200' and adjusts the width of the 100' and sets the original corners accordingly, then the line becomes fixed.
Keep in mind that proportionate measure is the process of adjusting your distance measurements to match those of previous surveys that you find on the ground, so if you measure 200' as 203' and you "adjust your chain" appropriately, then you will measure a record 100' as 101.5'.
If you are retracing the E 100' of that record 200' lot and find physical evidence of the line at 101.5', it is neither your duty nor your right to disagree with it. Likewise, if the original surveyor placed the line at a location where you measure it to be at or very near the E 100.00', then that's where it is.
The point is, the corners and lines are where the first surveyor to establish them on the ground placed them, whether or not he placed them correctly.
Also from Am Jur 2d, Boundaries, å¤51: "On a resurvey to establish lost boundaries, if the original corners can be found, the places where they were originally established are conclusive without regard to whether they were in fact correctly located. This rule is based on the premise that the stability of boundary lines is more important than minor inaccuracies or mistakes."
Note that it refers to "original corners" and not to "original monuments". While a monument is an object placed to mark a corner, the corner is a position that may be determined from other evidence if the original monument is missing.
In the absence of survey monuments, you need to look at roadway improvements and the history of their placement and upgrades since initial placement. Quite often, particularly in urban areas where most or all of the original survey monuments have since disappeared, the improvements within the street, and sometimes on the adjacent lots are the best remaining evidence of the original locations of the RW lines.
Good, that's one set of points that you don't have to wonder if they are the original locations (unless either has been disturbed).
How does your measurement between the mons compare to the record distance? How do these positions compare to other block corners. Preferably you would have found the block corners to the West as well.
eapls2708, post: 348292, member: 589 wrote: Good, that's one set of points that you don't have to wonder if they are the original locations (unless either has been disturbed).
How does your measurement between the mons compare to the record distance? How do these positions compare to other block corners. Preferably you would have found the block corners to the West as well.
My road is a dead end as constructed. There is a paper intersection with a monument. I probed pretty good but didn't find anything. Curbs of both streets are very parallel. We've done much work on this street and in this subdivision. Everything we ever find usually checks within a very low tolerance of reason. This time happens to not.
Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
eapls2708, post: 348289, member: 589 wrote: wider than the record 200' and adjusts the width of the 100' and sets the original corners accordingly, then the line becomes fixed.
If you are retracing the E 100' of that record 200' lot and find physical evidence of the line at 101.5', it is neither your duty nor your right to disagree with it.
The point is, the corners and lines are where the first surveyor to establish them on the ground placed them, whether or not he placed them correctly.
Absolutely. I agree with everything you said here.
Once physical evidence is found you cannot use proportionate measurement. Agreed.
Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
In the vast majority of instances, landowners and others will accept the surveyor's as correct and it will never be challenged in court.
That's very true and in Utah (and I suspect many other states) establishes the boundary location. So that's the test, have the landowners accepted some survey, maybe not the original, and under law established the boundary location. You can't apply any math or measurements directly to this issue, its another kind of evidence the surveyor must collect and evaluate. Once that is done then yes the opinion of boundary location. If the landowners have accepted it and established the boundary location what basis is there to reject it, especially due to the record measurements not working out to suit you.
This sort of stuff may make you nervous, you need to talk to humans and put down the tech tools. You need to learn the law and in the end you will need to express some professional judgement that doesn't fly out of the CAD file or some math function. There is liability attached to that expression of professional judgement.
Did you contact the other surveyor to see what he used? After reviewing his information you may still disagree with his location but it won't be based on assumption. You need to be able to explain what he did incorrectly.
How does the distance between the monuments compare to the record? If it is different are you just translating to the monument at your corner and rotating to the other monument or are you proportioning the lots between the monuments. How does each method match the existing occupation and existing corners on other lots?
Did you find any evidence besides the old survey for your lot on your street (another original monument)? You are assuming the the map is correct and the lots are 90å¡. Does the evidence support that assumption?
If Weaver Street was created at the time the monuments were set then the monument is the sideline of Weaver Street. You will need to look for other evidence to decide how to handle the angle in Weaver Street.
If Weaver Street existed before the monuments were set then the Location of Weaver Street holds over the monument. The monument at the street line fixes the line between your lot and the adjoiner only. You need to use more than your record distance to establish the street line, you need to know how Weaver Street was created. You may find that the actual distance from the rear monument to the sideline of Weaver Street is more, less or even the same as the record or measured distances.
If Weaver Street was created at the time the monuments were set then the monument is the sideline of Weaver Street. You will need to look for other evidence to decide how to handle the angle in Weaver Street.
If Weaver Street existed before the monuments were set then the Location of Weaver Street holds over the monument. The monument at the street line fixes the line between your lot and the adjoiner only. You need to use more than your record distance to establish the street line, you need to know how Weaver Street was created. You may find that the actual distance from the rear monument to the sideline of Weaver Street is more, less or even the same as the record or measured distances.
I call this type of survey an "as-built of survey monuments" based on a baseline between points A and B. Jp
That's a good point. The call for "Weaver Street" supersedes the call for the monuments. If Weaver Street is controlled by some other means then the monuments yield.
