I'll add an Amen to Evan's post regarding map review. I've found it to be a racket mostly used to justify a few county salaries and pensions (especially when it comes to subdivisions). Having worked in Texas where nothing is recorded locally except subdivisions (I think there may be a state GLO recording system but I never saw a current survey come out of it) and deeds I note the following generalizations:
Survey plats in California are generally held to higher standards: I appreciate a few of the County Surveyor comments but about 80% have no value. A few of my favorites: "please change your adjoiner linetype from a dashed line to a solid line" --- "a plastic cap goes on top of a rebar. If it's in a pipe then it must be a plastic plug" --- "please remove the space between Cal and Trans"
It would be funny if they weren't charging the responsible licensee (expense hopefully passed on to the client but not always) $100+ per hour for this 'service'. If anyone asks me I'd vote to eliminate the recording requirement in California. It was a great idea in theory but not in practice. This would not serve the public well but the effect is that filing is discouraged and feared by a growing number of professionals (and savvy clients) so we may seek angles to avoid the requirements (eg. once you find what you need in the field you stop looking because the chance is out there that you discover a material discrepancy on the adjoiner's lot and then your on the hook for a $500 map review fee; or you attempt to file really fancy and complicated corner records (8 1/2 x 11 inches) that would look much better on a full size 18 x 24 plat then argue that no triggers for Record of Survey were encountered; or simply provide extreme estimates for projects which obviously require filing so the clients will go to someone else)
All that aside, my mapping has improved dramatically and I'd say generally the overall quality of maps and plats is better but this is certainly not the rule.
I love being able to easily access 150 year old maps of local parcels. Recording is certainly a benefit to the public. Map review is maybe not a benefit
Deeds in California are garbage: Reliance on recorded maps for everything has created a historic trend for deeds in California to be concise eliminating trivialities like calls to monuments, accessories and adjoiners. This practice is perpetuated (by most surveyors) through lot line adjustments and easements. I like being able to take a deed to the field and retrace it with minimal interpretation. You can't really do that in California. In Texas where the deeds are the only permanent record of the survey they have to stand on their own.
I've been out of Texas for over eight years so my memory is a bit fuzzy (I'm sure some southern pride will stand to correct me if i'm wrong) and I was never licensed there (SIT in April 2007)
At the end of the day it all boils down to the diligence of the surveyor and his personal ethics and ideals in either locale. I value peer review but it should not be mandated as the system breaks down when a county government is required to put a warm body behind a desk. That person does not always turn out to be diligent, professional or competent. Then again, neither does the person submitting the map.
I doubt that the people reading this forum are the problem children out there. It's the ones that don't have time to take proper care that mess it up for everyone
Big Al, post: 433262, member: 837 wrote: 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
In Arizona a Record of Survey map must be recorded within 90 days of completion of the survey.
JKinAK, post: 433251, member: 7219 wrote: Do all states have a state recorder's office or are some state's recordings just county by county?
Iowa records county by county, but in recent years we have a state-wide electronic data base called Iowa Land Records that we can query for PDF files of the deed, survey, and corner records since whenever they started electronic archiving, probably 15 or 20 years back.
