I got a request for a survey between two neighbors who are in a dispute over three of the common lines. The property was in a family ranch that 70 years ago got split between some cousins into an LLC and the main ranch that stayed in the decedents of the homesteader. The family portion was sold a few years ago and the LLC is still retained by the cousins. Once the family ranch was sold the area became less friendly. Imagine that.
To make it more interesting the BLM recently dependently re-surveyed the township and Imperial interests are along all three lines with a fresh governmental survey and monuments at all the controlling sectional corners but none for interior lines. So, accepting old occupation lines or off math position monuments is problematic to say the least.
I'm working on a survey now where the BLM came in and did a dependent resurvey of a lone section in 2016 mostly surrounded by privately surveyed properties. The BLM accepted a bunch of the private survey monuments which was cool. I kept hearing stories of the BLM rejecting private survey monuments so I was expecting something messy, but this was instead a pleasant surprise.
Could this be one of those situations that Justice Cooley wrote about?
I'm working on a survey now where the BLM came in and did a dependent resurvey of a lone section in 2016 mostly surrounded by privately surveyed properties. The BLM accepted a bunch of the private survey monuments which was cool. I kept hearing stories of the BLM rejecting private survey monuments so I was expecting something messy, but this was instead a pleasant surprise.
They are changing. Did they accept any interior off math monuments?
Did they accept any interior off math monuments?
Yep, multiples, as well as exterior corner monuments.
I've attached a copy of the survey and the field notes which describe what they did at the southeast 1/16 corner which was monumented during a subdivision plat in the 70s and accepted during a replat in the 90s.
Thanks for the info. I like the plat. Good to see one like that.
@bstrand It's obvious the entire survey is wrong. There isn't a single 1320 or 2640 anywhere. 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
I noticed a change in attitude by the BLM with regard to local survey evidence begin to occur in the late 1980s. Prior to that, they seemed to take the mathmagical approach and reject any points of local control more than a link from their calculated positions.
Read the back half of Chapter 3 of the 2009 Manual and you will have a lot more comfort accepting local monuments over the math breakdowns according to the exterior monument positions and the math prescribed to be used to subdivide previously undivided sections.
There is a recent BLM resurvey where a subdivision corner (S1/16th between two section lines) surveyed in the 1970's was rejected and a brass cap placed 10 feet away into a subdivision lot. These are 10 acre subdivision lots in rugged mountain lands. I can't look at the survey, they haven't released it yet. A landowner stopped in to chat about it. He felt that when the brass cap was set 10' into his lot all the other lots need to move 10'. I told him that wouldn't be the case, in fact he will probably lose a tiny rectangle around his southeast corner, but the rest of his lines should stay the same. Since this is his SE corner and the BLM lands head south and east of that corner his east line will still be where the original subdivision corners were set along with his south line. Only his neighbor to the south will be effected. His east line would lose a long narrow triangle.
There is a recent BLM resurvey where a subdivision corner (S1/16th between two section lines) surveyed in the 1970's was rejected and a brass cap placed 10 feet away into a subdivision lot. These are 10 acre subdivision lots in rugged mountain lands. I can't look at the survey, they haven't released it yet. A landowner stopped in to chat about it. He felt that when the brass cap was set 10' into his lot all the other lots need to move 10'. I told him that wouldn't be the case, in fact he will probably lose a tiny rectangle around his southeast corner, but the rest of his lines should stay the same. Since this is his SE corner and the BLM lands head south and east of that corner his east line will still be where the original subdivision corners were set along with his south line. Only his neighbor to the south will be effected. His east line would lose a long narrow triangle.
Is this landowner actually losing land, or did he never own it in the first place? When clients ask me about the differences between my surveys and the record plan or deed information, I tell them "you can't lose what was never there in the first place" or words to that effect.
There is a recent BLM resurvey where a subdivision corner (S1/16th between two section lines) surveyed in the 1970's was rejected and a brass cap placed 10 feet away into a subdivision lot. These are 10 acre subdivision lots in rugged mountain lands. I can't look at the survey, they haven't released it yet. A landowner stopped in to chat about it. He felt that when the brass cap was set 10' into his lot all the other lots need to move 10'. I told him that wouldn't be the case, in fact he will probably lose a tiny rectangle around his southeast corner, but the rest of his lines should stay the same. Since this is his SE corner and the BLM lands head south and east of that corner his east line will still be where the original subdivision corners were set along with his south line. Only his neighbor to the south will be effected. His east line would lose a long narrow triangle.
Is this landowner actually losing land, or did he never own it in the first place? When clients ask me about the differences between my surveys and the record plan or deed information, I tell them "you can't lose what was never there in the first place" or words to that effect.
My opinion was that he should lose almost nothing, the new brass cap is ten feet by 2 feet into his parcel. So 20sq ft of land for him, his neighbor to the south will lose 10'/2x1320 or 6500sq ft. the rest should be unaffected. I was disappointed that they didn't accept the 1/16th monument. But haven't seen the survey, it's not been posted yet. Maybe they are pondering it.
Do you know if they rejected it based on methodology or on the magnitude of the difference of location? Prior to 1988 or so (at least the areas I've worked in), they tended to look at a positional difference as prima facie evidence of incorrect methodology. Since then, they have seemed to look more closely at methods, repose and other considerations learned boundary surveyors must consider.
10' would certainly send up a red flag, but hopefully there's stronger reasoning behind their decision than mere mathemagics.