I don??t know about other states, but in my area it??s required to show overlaps in occupation while surveying a boundary. My interpretation of ??line not surveyed? would be that no attempt was made to locate any occupational overlaps between the corners.
It's actually required in a number of jurisdictions that there is a statement on the plat "not part of this survey" and another that says "not part of this subdivision". If not placed on the plat the plat will be rejected. Of course these are parcels shown that weren't surveyed but are shown for reference.?ÿ
Saw a survey drawing earlier today tied to two controlling monuments.?ÿ One at a section corner and one at the nearest quarter corner.?ÿ Both locations have notes saying "Not recovered this survey."?ÿ But, are shown found previously per Land Survey Reference Report by LS #1234 in 2003.
Is what was found in 2003 even still there is 2022??ÿ Are the references from the Reference Reports still valid??ÿ The point of beginning of the surveyed tract is reported as being precisely 665.42 feet from one of those controlling corners and on a?ÿ straight line connecting them.?ÿ Wanna bet?
I don??t know about other states, but in my area it??s required to show overlaps in occupation while surveying a boundary. My interpretation of ??line not surveyed? would be that no attempt was made to locate any occupational overlaps between the corners.
Why hinge the interpretation of the phrase on one,.of many, requirements for a survey??ÿ
I don??t know about other states, but in my area it??s required to show overlaps in occupation while surveying a boundary. My interpretation of ??line not surveyed? would be that no attempt was made to locate any occupational overlaps between the corners.
Why hinge the interpretation of the phrase on one,.of many, requirements for a survey??ÿ
I guess I don't see the note too often, but why would anyone leave a note of "line not surveyed" other than that reason? If "line not surveyed" meant the line is not accurately depicted, I could have already come to this conclusion without the statement being made as they wouldn't have shown found or set controlling monuments, therefore it's a redundant statement that wouldn't change my interpretation of the Survey as a whole. That's why I hinge my interpretation on that specific requirement as it actually makes sense in that case.
?ÿ
@bstrand Point noted and the situation is somewhat hypothetical.
I've kicked the idea around in my head over the years and have yet to do it. Largely comes up when a survey has been recorded within the past year, I know that surveyor (personally or by having followed their work many times), and I'm wrestling with pricing a 2 lot division as a complete, 10-acre retracement when the damn thing was just done.?ÿ ?ÿ
As I'm typing, probably has to do with everyone's current workload. Why doesn't the client call the guy who just did the retracement? Oh, yeah. He was 2 months behind on delivering that and won't answer the phone for the follow-up work.
Ultimately, I'm not convinced it would be a problem to do it in the manner described. The new division map would have to be filed, per regs. Referencing the recently recorded boundary for the "lines not surveyed" would keep the chain of records connected for future researchers. The new lots would be mapped, new monuments set, and ties to parent boundary could be easily retraced.
I'll probably keep chewing on it from time to time. ??§?ÿ
I don??t know about other states, but in my area it??s required to show overlaps in occupation while surveying a boundary. My interpretation of ??line not surveyed? would be that no attempt was made to locate any occupational overlaps between the corners.
Why hinge the interpretation of the phrase on one,.of many, requirements for a survey??ÿ
I guess I don't see the note too often, but why would anyone leave a note of "line not surveyed" other than that reason? If "line not surveyed" meant the line is not accurately depicted, I could have already come to this conclusion without the statement being made as they wouldn't have shown found or set controlling monuments, therefore it's a redundant statement that wouldn't change my interpretation of the Survey as a whole. That's why I hinge my interpretation on that specific requirement as it actually makes sense in that case.
?ÿ
I can think of two reasons.?ÿ
1. The line is depicted just for orientation or location and is drawn from a record, or even a local GIS.?ÿ
2. The distance and bearing between two points have been measured, but no boundary determination has been made. For example, a tie to corner not on the parcel you are surveying is required for control of a corner of your parcel. This would include your interpretation, but also a whole lot more.?ÿ
I use different methods in these situations, but a "line not surveyed" note seems reasonable to me.
I have noticed here often a "not visited this survey", and sometimes a document number for a recorded corner, label at the endpoint of such lines shown for context.
Well, if you're retracing a recent survey then finding the monuments should be much faster than it might have otherwise been, so I guess to me that helps justify the expense.?ÿ It also seems a bit odd that the landowner would buy a ROS and not request the lot split at the same time.?ÿ If it's a matter of poor planning on the landowner's part then I'd feel a little bit bad for them of course, but ultimately it's not my responsibility to make up for that error.
Ultimately, I'm not convinced it would be a problem to do it in the manner described. The new division map would have to be filed, per regs. Referencing the recently recorded boundary for the "lines not surveyed" would keep the chain of records connected for future researchers. The new lots would be mapped, new monuments set, and ties to parent boundary could be easily retraced.
Yeah, but I don't think it's really helping to build the pedigree of the monuments when you do it this way.
PS Wendell how is it that a surveying forum has a spell checker that does not recognize the word "adjoiner"
The forum doesn't have a spell checker. That would be your browser, most likely.
I have done this in the past when subdividing a parcel in NC. The property was around 17 acres and I was cutting a house and 1 acre out of it. The house was in one corner of the parent parcel, based on the deed and an original survey I was able to determine the boundary I needed, to cut out the parcel. There was no need to survey the entire 17 acres in order to do this.
See attached for a sample plat from the NC board. It shows how lines not surveyed can be shown (see the legend). Typically, referencing adjoiners.
@survey-ted exactly - the board has a sample map denoting just what I have seen before. nothing wrong with it necessarily but it must be stated or noted at a minimum
It's actually required in a number of jurisdictions that there is a statement on the plat "not part of this survey" and another that says "not part of this subdivision". If not placed on the plat the plat will be rejected. Of course these are parcels shown that weren't surveyed but are shown for reference.?ÿ
Which of course leads to future descriptions like "That parcel shown as "Not a Part of the Subdivision""!
