JKinAK, post: 432942, member: 7219 wrote: In a recent Ring, ring posting there was a lot of discussion about recording surveys and states that don't have recording laws. In November of 2013 Shawn BIllings posted a poll looking for info on if your state was PLSS or not and whether or not it was mandatory to record a survey. There seem to be more than a few states without recording laws.
Given that boundary survey records:
- help protect property rights and the fabric of the cadastre;
- increase the likelihood of quiet enjoyment of title;
- reduce the potential for survey error based gaps/overlaps;
- give you and every other surveyor more basis to accept/reject found monumentation;
- protect and perpetuate your survey;
- makes corner cutters think a little longer about which corners to cut since their mistakes/shoddy work will be of record.I just don't understand how anyone can defend the absence of recording laws.
If your state does NOT have a recording law - Please share:
1. What state you are answering about;
2. Does your state survey society support adding a recording law?
[INDENT]A) If so - have the tried to introduce legislation?
[INDENT]i) If so - what happened with that effort?[/INDENT]
B) If not - what is the rationale behind making boundary info difficult or impossible to obtain?[/INDENT]If your state DOES have a recording law - Please share:
1. What state you are answering about;
2. Is the survey subject to review?The goal is to get everyone working from the same set of facts.
I could see the review being onerous. Fortunately, Alaska does NOT require review of any type if the survey being recorded is NOT subdividing land (and no local authority can legally require such a review).I just don't see an upside for the survey community or for the public when surveys occur but aren't publicly available - help me understand.
I would prefer mandatory title reports recorded that go back more than 50 years. You want to protect the public? Fix the law profession.
Bill93, post: 433005, member: 87 wrote: I don't see a problem with this. The deed record tells you whether the swap or sale happened or not. And recording that survey, like any other, preserves information about monumentation.
That is a very important thing ro remember. Surveys memorialize evidence. They do not create title. Given enough time or the right actions, owners may create or surrender title based on the Survey, but the Survey itself did nothing.
This is why we typically have two survey repositories in each county. Those that are to be recorded and maintained for eternity end up in the Register of Deeds Office. All other surveys tend to end up in files maintained by the Road and Bridge or Public Works Offices along with railroad strip maps, section corner reports, road information, bridge information, highway plans and all sorts of other goodies of great value to surveyors. In some cases, those files are maintained by the County Surveyor The formal Register of Deeds Office has no interest in all of that other "stuff" and maintaining it for a billion years.
So, I hesitate to record a survey with the R-O-D until the landowners take their action to truly create the tract. Typically, I have already made it available to other surveyors by placing a copy in the alternate files at Road and Bridge or Public Works.
The danger with recording them prior to the true creation by the landowner is that our R-O-D folks like to pass these along to the mapping department (GIS, whatever) and they want to start treating them as though they really exist. This may result in a property owner receiving two property tax statements when they only own one tract.
Good for Kansas. Many (most?) places don't have the alternate public repository.
The GIS folks SHOULD know better than to create parcels with no deed. Surveyors shouldn't have to hide their work to keep that from happening.
I've worked nearly 20 years each in recording and non-recording States, with a few years overseas sprinkled in between. The quality and condition of Survey evidence is directly related to the recording requirements. Situations where incompetence and fraud have crept in become evident when the chain is there for all to see. Is it perfect? No. It is far superior to the 'kick the can down the road, every man for himself' world I have observed elsewhere. I will never work in a non-recording State again.
Jawja, post: 432954, member: 12766 wrote: Well, let's see: part of my practice is to talk to the adjoiners. So I generally have a feeling of what is going on. Then, I actually have the adjoining info, so if something does not fit, I am aware of it. Then, if I find an issue, I typically send a copy of my map to that adjoiners show the issues that I found. I do not play cover up as you imply; so, no, I really do not lose sleep about the public.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
aliquot, post: 432963, member: 2486 wrote: I make boundary decisions everyday.
Amen Brother! So do I - Any surveyor who has been "Robillarded" into not doing so should hang up his professional license and take up something besides surveying.
Jim in AZ, post: 433026, member: 249 wrote: Amen Brother! So do I - Any surveyor who has been "Robillarded" into not doing so should hang up his professional license and take up something besides surveying.
Some would make great engineering technicians.
Colorado enacted a "plat deposit" law in 1987. It is not recorded, but available to the public. It does not affect title. It a public repository of land surveys that describe when, how and why surveyors set monuments.
Prior to 1987, the professional standards were very lax, and whatever laws there were were very difficult to enforce and there was no real consistency among professionals. In fact, it was more lucrative for surveyors to do poor work and let their clients store the "survey plats" in their respective attics.
Since 1987, the profession has been elevated. There surveyors and landowners can see where surveys have been done and how they were done. Most surveyors now follow decent and consistent standards which benefit all. For those of us who make errors, or, as we get older, change our mind on concepts, we can correct a previous plat if we wish, without consequence.
pincushions have been reduced. This is a great tool for surveyors, and a great incentive to keep high standards. There is simply no comparison at all between before we deposited our land survey plats, and now.
warren ward PLS CO OK, post: 433099, member: 12536 wrote: It does not affect title.
Do title companies typically review these plats? Is there anything to prevent a title company from reviewing a deposited plat and creating an exception to insurance coverage based on the information disclosed by the plat?
Jim Frame, post: 433105, member: 10 wrote: Do title companies typically review these plats? Is there anything to prevent a title company from reviewing a deposited plat and creating an exception to insurance coverage based on the information disclosed by the plat?
In my State - yes. Record of Survey maps are frequently listed in the Exceptions.
Jawja, post: 432946, member: 12766 wrote: Here, we put caps on irons. Surveyors know who is wh by the caps and can get copies of maps from each other.
For as long as those other surveyors are in business, perhaps. And are you telling me that there is no one who refuses to share?
Mark Mayer, post: 433224, member: 424 wrote: For as long as those other surveyors are in business, perhaps. And are you telling me that there is no one who refuses to share?
I can count the times on one hand. And that is in 25+ yrs.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Jawja, post: 433225, member: 12766 wrote: I can count the times on one hand. And that is in 25+ yrs.
You are very lucky to have such cooperative people around you. The situation in Oklahoma, when I was there, was much different.
Jim in AZ, post: 433210, member: 249 wrote: In my State - yes. Record of Survey maps are frequently listed in the Exceptions.
The lack of a Survey is usually handled by this statement in the Schedule B exceptions list:
" this coverage is subject to ??the exceptions from coverage contained in Schedule B? of the policy. Therefore, if no survey is obtained, Schedule B of the policy will take exception to matters of survey for the owner by excepting to: ??Any facts, rights, interest or claims which would be disclosed by an accurate survey and inspection of the premises herein described.? Thus, the owner will have no coverage for any matters which a survey would have shown."
I've never worked in a non-recording state, but it occurs to me the impetus behind the resistance to recording is the attitude that those records have more competitive value to the individual surveyor as proprietary than they would if they were public. I see this as short sighted in relation to the public trust. Irons lose their caps, surveyors die and their records can be scattered and lost, properties trade hands, businesses and homes burn down. My guess is fifty years from now without a stable public repository for those records, they will gradually disappear and the job of distinguishing a goat stake from a true corner will be more difficult and the cadaster less stable.
Just my .02'
Carry on.
The only real problem I have with recording laws is that the review part of the law can be and often is too easily abused by the reviewing agency.
IMO, a review can be a very good thing if performed by someone who is well above average in boundary survey knowledge, aware of the history of local practice, the existence or non-existence of unfiled but useful records, and who provides substantive rather than style comments.
Unfortunately, in most counties in CA (and other states where I've heard grumblings about review comments), it is often an LSIT, a fairly new licensee, or even someone without even an LSIT doing the actual review according to some checklist provided by some more experienced LS who rarely looks closely at the drawings, and having a rudimentary knowledge of coordinate geometry.
Far too often, the comments that come from these map checkers ranges from having little real value to annoying to reaching well beyond their authority, and occasionally downright wrong and potentially harmful to the public.
Over-reaching authority: "Remove reference to any monuments you did not accept for your boundary resolution." Meaning, if it wasn't accepted as a controlling monument, don't show it.
"You're determination of the westerly line is incorrect. Change it to be on a straight line with the monuments found at _______ and _______, and utilize the deed distance of _______."
Non-substantial and annoying: "In this County, the standard is to use an open circle for set monuments, a large closed circle for set monuments, a small closed circle for dimension points, and a bold square with an X in it for concrete centerline monuments." or "Your North Arrow is too complicated. Change it to the standard North Arrow used in this County [one that looks like it was hastily scratched into a field book]."
My reply to such nonsense: "Thank you for pointing out the drafting standards for County maps. If and when I prepare a map under contract with the County, I will inquire into your full set of standards for in-house maps an fully comply with those standards. Since this map is being prepared for a private client, I'll take these comments as merely informative of your in-house standards and as style suggestions. I may consider some of those suggestions for future maps. Being non-substantive style comments not covered under the Professional Land Surveyors' Act, I will not be altering this drawing according to your suggestions."
Non-substantial but useful and appreciated (even if annoying): "You misspelled 'galvanized' in the description of the found pipe at _____."; "The dimension for the southerly line is partially obscured by the nearby easement line." Oops - more annoying that I missed those than for them providing the comment.
Substantial and potentially useful: "I found the wording of Note #3 to be a little confusing. Could you rephrase it something like '____....' or better identify which fence corner you are referring to?"
"Please add a note of explanation why you rejected the iron pipe at ______ in favor of the nearby redwood hub."
"_________ just submitted a map for the adjacent property and he rejects your irons. You may want to contact him to compare notes and see if one of you knows something the other doesn't."
Substantial and potentially eye-opening: "You may not be aware of the records of ________, now owned by _________ that might shed some light on the origins of the unmarked pipes you found along the westerly boundary. Call _______ at 555-1234 to see if you can get a copy of the survey done there in the 1940s."
"This map looks good, but in case you aren't aware of it yet, the State Supreme Court published an opinion last week that you might want to review before recording this map. It's _________ v. __________, and I've attached a copy for you."
Conversely, even in a state where review fees can be onerous in some counties, I often see maps that depict obviously poorly performed surveys, lack any clarity as to what methodology was adhered to, and/or lack any explanation as to why certain monuments were accepted or rejected when there might be some legitimate question as to the proper controlling evidence.
In many cases, the review cost of several hundred dollars or more is passed on to the client, and for that sum, they had someone ensure that the statutorily required statements are on the map, there is a north arrow, and the margins are of proper width. No significant added value.
In relatively few cases, someone with some real knowledge looks at it and offers some truly useful comments.
If a review comment serves to make my map a better document in some substantive way, then I'm glad to get it. If it's a useless style comment, direction to alter my boundary determination in some way rather than a suggestion to consider info I might not be aware of, or boundary direction from someone clearly not qualified to give it, then I see that as a needless, if not fraudulent fee charged by the agency.
Onerous review fees aside, if they exist, recording has several advantages for the public and a few for practicing surveyors. I can only think of a few advantages for a non-recording system for practicing surveyors, fewer still for clients, and none for the public in general.
Most of the reasons listed by jawja for not recording seem to me to be prime reasons for recording. His experience in file sharing among companies is rare in my experience. In those places I worked in non-recording jurisdictions, most considered their records to be proprietary and to represent the value of their business. I don't even need all the fingers of one hand to count the number of times an employer would even consider that they could get copies of someone else's map, much less notes, for free of for a reasonable fee.
At one company I worked for, the boss began his career several years before mandatory recording even though it existed when I worked for him. His attitude reflected what I suspect is probably the majority attitude in non-recording states. He would include only the statutory minimum amount of info required on a map, not a single point or line more, and never a note to explain anything. If others called to get some info, he would refuse or set a price that would have well exceeded the profit had we been hired to survey for the other guy's client. His reasoning "We aren't in business to do other people's surveying for them!" I was given that nugget by way of getting chewed out for providing a copy of an old map and a couple pages of field notes to another local surveyor.
Sorry this thread got hijacked from JK's original intent. If there are any surveyors in non-recording states who are aware of reasons that the public is better off without required recording, I would be interested because I'm having trouble balancing the advantages and disadvantages toward the non-recording side.
eapls2708, post: 433246, member: 589 wrote: review part of the law can be and often is too easily abused by the reviewing agency.
Amen... Our Record of Survey law and Record of Monument law requires the State Recorder's Office to take these documents (WITHOUT review). The Record of Survey cannot subdivide land or create other land interests (easements, etc.) and you have to certify that it does not do so. If you don't have a recording law, and you intend to propose one - definitely make sure to word it so that local entities can't effectively require review. We did have a local gov require review but they had no authority - you simply record the drawing/doc without their review.
Do all states have a state recorder's office or are some state's recordings just county by county?
JKinAK, post: 433251, member: 7219 wrote: Amen... Our Record of Survey law and Record of Monument law requires the State Recorder's Office to take these documents (WITHOUT review). The Record of Survey cannot subdivide land or create other land interests (easements, etc.) and you have to certify that it does not do so. If you don't have a recording law, and you intend to propose one - definitely make sure to word it so that local entities can't effectively require review. We did have a local gov require review but they had no authority - you simply record the drawing/doc without their review.
Do all states have a state recorder's office or are some state's recordings just county by county?
AZ = County Recorders
I believe that most States where maps do get recorded, it is through the County Recorder or County Clerk.
I believe that AK is pretty unique in this regard, although IIRC, in WA, records of survey are filed with the State DNR as well as with the County Recorder.
There are two types of land in Massachusetts - "recorded" (deed is claim of ownership) and "registered" (Torrens system - deed is registration or proof of ownership). While it is possible to do a survey of registered land without review of the Land Court (reviewing authority for registered land), it will do nothing to change the boundaries of the property.
Regarding the more common "recorded" land, Massachusetts does not require recording of plans when no new lines have been created (81X statement). When new lines are made (subdivision, etc.) the law requires that the Planning Board of the city or town in which the land lies review and endorse the plan. Without that endorsement, and short of fraud, the plan (in the latter case) can not be required.
I'm not sure how I feel about mandating the recording of plans. I can see some good reasons both for and against it. One of the benefits of introducing mandatory recording would be that a surveyor might count on finding a public record showing information about monuments set after the recording law was introduced. I have often encountered situations where I find a pipe, a rebar, or other monument, and have nothing describing where it came from, when it was set, or upon what basis. It is a puzzle. That said, given the long history here in Massachusetts, there are so many situations that are ambiguous, due to poor records, deterioration of monuments with time, etc. that I'm not sure introducing a mandatory recording law at this point would much help. With time, it might help.
Down sides might be increased costs to the public, introducing delays or other headaches by introduction of review process, etc.
I am curious as to how it works within the recording states - exactly at what point is the recording of a plan required?
Al
