Do any other States have anything like this? Do any other States actually have laws that would encourage the recording of non-subdivision plats? The certificate starting at line 65 and the section starting at line 151 are especially troublesome.
Where I am at all boundary work gets recorded, the approval process, however, varies.
Steve
lmbrls, post: 378552, member: 6823 wrote: The certificate starting at line 65 and the section starting at line 151 are especially troublesome.
Section 2(d) starting at line 151 states that a surveyor fraudulently certifying a survey is guilty of a misdemeanor if so convicted. What's troubling about a sanction for fraud?
Filed, technically Minor Subdivisions (Parcel Maps), Major Subdivisions (Final Maps), and Record of Survey maps are filed, not recorded, in California.
I think the distinction stems from the Recorders practice of copying, first by hand, later by typewriter, Deeds into books then mailing the original back to the person in the box at the upper left. In the 1960s most went to microfilm copying the document and now they image the documents.
With maps the original stays at the Recorder's office, hence they are filed, not recorded.
Survey filing is essential to an orderly system of information about where the boundaries are located and what evidence might be out there. Maybe everyone knows today but what about 50 years from now and 100 years from now, how will they know? It just seems so backward to not have filed Surveys.
If the word "certify" scares you, have your representatives in the state capitol do what California did: define "certify".
6735.5. The use of the word "certify" or "certification" by a registered professional engineer in the practice of professional engineering or land surveying constitutes an expression of professional opinion regarding those facts or findings which are the subject of the certification, and does not constitute a warranty or guarantee, either expressed or implied.
I'm with Dave. How one surveys without having past surveys on file to review is a mystery to me. Crazy!
I'm guessing: The catch in your craw is that you must certify that ALL relevant governing bodies have approved the subdivision and you have to list them individually on the face of the plat. Yet, no mechanism will be in place to guide you to this comprehensive list of authorities.
So, you could be opening yourself to punitive action, even when acting in good faith. That's a little sticky.
The only thing I can say is, I've been permitting things for years and you have to go on your local knowledge and standard of care each time you submit on behalf of a client. I believe that's where a large part of our value as professionals is derived.
When working in unfamiliar districts, the standard of care should not be different. However, that local knowledge is something you have to do plenty of homework to get your head around. A plus is, it should all be codified (the required approval processes) and that is what you have to stand on.
Any monument I set in the ground gets a recorded survey. I really don't know how some in the profession considers recording maps documenting what you set, where you set it and why you set it, a detriment to anyone or anything.
I don't "certify" surveys. I make a "Surveyor's Statement:"
SURVEYORÛªS STATEMENT
This map correctly represents a survey made by me or under my direction in
conformance with the requirements of the Professional Land SurveyorsÛª Act at the request of
_______________________________ in _____________, 20 ___.
Name of Person Authorizing Survey
(Signed and sealed) _________________________
L.S. (or R.C.E.) No. ________________________
COUNTY SURVEYORÛªS STATEMENT
This map has been examined in accordance with Section 8766 of the Professional
Land SurveyorsÛª Act this _____day of ________, 20 ____.
(Signed and sealed) __________________________
County Surveyor
L.S. (or R.C.E.) No. _________________________
RECORDERÛªS STATEMENT
Filed this day of , 20 ______, at .m. in Book
__________________ of____________________________ at page ________________, at the
request of ________________________.
(Signed) _________________________________
County Recorder
I don't say certify, correct, true, in my statements. There are many phrases, words, etc that are used to hang you with,,,,, it's a lawyers world and we are all players in it
Jim Frame, post: 378556, member: 10 wrote: Section 2(d) starting at line 151 states that a surveyor fraudulently certifying a survey is guilty of a misdemeanor if so convicted. What's troubling about a sanction for fraud?
I have no problem with actual fraud being prosecuted to the point of a surveyor losing their licensee. The issue is the all inclusive wording of the certificate and the fact that we have 159 elected Clerks of Court. As they are elected, they are politically connected and may be subject to pressure from the influential, county officials and family. Boss Hog still has an active system in some counties. These elected officials will be reviewing the plats and deciding what meets the recording requirements.
WA-ID Surveyor, post: 378571, member: 6294 wrote: Any monument I set in the ground gets a recorded survey. I really don't know how some in the profession considers recording maps documenting what you set, where you set it and why you set it, a detriment to anyone or anything.
I agree totally that all surveys should be recorded. In fact, a Surveyor's Report should be included.Trust me, we stay on the phone constantly trying to get surveys from other Surveyors. Most are cooperative. I would like to see recording be required; however, many clients do not want their plat to be recorded. As it is not required, they see this as an unnecessary expense. The new recording law will further discourage plats being recorded is exactly my point. This is a case of a special interest group making a bad situation worst.
BajaOR, post: 378569, member: 9139 wrote: How one surveys without having past surveys on file to review is a mystery to me. Crazy!
We have a term for the process.
It's called surveying. Where you take the deeds of the subject property and the adjoining property owners and compare them with the evidence on the ground to form an opinion as to the location of the boundary.
Tommy Young, post: 378631, member: 703 wrote: We have a term for the process.
It's called surveying. Where you take the deeds of the subject property and the adjoining property owners and compare them with the evidence on the ground to form an opinion as to the location of the boundary.
What's even more impressive is that it can all be done without a Manual of Survey Instructions 😀
Tommy Young, post: 378631, member: 703 wrote: We have a term for the process.
It's called surveying. Where you take the deeds of the subject property and the adjoining property owners and compare them with the evidence on the ground to form an opinion as to the location of the boundary.
I would instead define the term as "surveying in a vacuum" when absent the records of the footsteps of those whose preceded us. Deeds and physical evidence alone often does not tell the whole history.
lmbrls, post: 378552, member: 6823 wrote: Do any other States have anything like this?
Heck, yes. 15 of them, most are out west.
For those who are conscientious about their work it won't change the results of the survey. It will expose those who are not. And it will increase the price of a survey rather dramatically.
Mark Mayer, post: 378648, member: 424 wrote: Heck, yes. 15 of them, most are out west.
For those who are conscientious about their work it won't change the results of the survey. It will expose those who are not. And it will increase the price of a survey rather dramatically.
So you are required by law to certify that every possible ordinance and everyone that might want to review the plat is covered? The law says all and every and not to my knowledge. I have no problem with a competent person reviewing my work. The state and federal agencies for which I work review every t & i. I have a problem with an elected official with often no background in surveying or even reading a plat deciding if my plat meets the requirements. This is not something that the County Surveyor does in this state. I agree a competent plat review and a requirement to record every survey would greatly help. I am for it.
I don't see that the sentence starting on line 151 is any different than the one crossed out on line 147. The statement provides a remedy for the public when a fraud is committed. The purpose of this statement may be to make us pause before filing a division of land without ensuring that it has gone through the complete process.
Where I work, there is a similar criteria for subdivisions and adjustments of land. Boundary surveys without any division or adjustment can be filed without review as long they meet standard recording requirements. That said, content on the survey can be reviewed and rejected by our Board if and when it is brought to their attention.
clearcut, post: 378644, member: 297 wrote: I would instead define the term as "surveying in a vacuum" when absent the records of the footsteps of those whose preceded us. Deeds and physical evidence alone often does not tell the whole history.
Well you better have a good relationship with the other surveyors in town. You also better get your mind right with the idea of accepting monuments that are not called for.
