To quote an often cited court case:

More simply put the question is:

In the event of a discrepancy as to subdivided land lot lines, do you go with what the original surveyor intended to do as shown by the plat or do you go with what the original surveyor did by way of laying out and monumenting his survey on the ground?

Surprisingly, because of surveying principles based on established surveying practices, the correct answer is that what the original surveyor actually did by way of monumenting his survey on the ground takes precedence over what he intended to do as shown by his written plat of survey.

The difficulty with the problem is that the role and practice of the surveyor and his function in solving a surveying problem of the type in this case is misunderstood. Lawyers, architects and design engineers are accustomed to achieving objectives by first conceiving of abstract ideas or plans, then reducing those ideas (intentions) to paper, and then using the written document from which to construct a physical object or otherwise tangibly achieve the original goal as written. When this is done, the written document is always considered authoritative and any deviation or discrepancy between it and what is actually done pursuant to it is resolved by considering the deviations and discrepancies as being defects or errors in the execution of the original plan to be corrected by changing the physical to conform to the intention evidenced by the writing. In only one situation does the surveyor play a similar role and that is when he, in the first instance, lays out boundaries in the original division of a tract which has theretofore existed as a single unit. Thereafter the surveyor's function radically changes. It is not the surveyor's right or responsibility to set up new points and lines establishing boundaries except when he is surveying theretofore unplatted land or subdividing a new tract. Where title to land has been established under a previous survey, the sole duty of all subsequent or following surveyors is to locate the points and lines of the original survey. Later surveyors must only track and "trace the footsteps" of the original surveyor in locating existing boundaries. They cannot establish a new corner or line nor can they correct erroneous surveys of earlier surveyors, even when the earlier surveyor obviously erred in following some apparent original "over-all design" or objective. The reason for this lies in the historic development of the concept of land boundaries and of the profession of surveying. Man set monuments as landmarks before he invented paper and still today the true survey is what the original surveyor did on the ground by way of fixing boundaries by setting monuments and running lines ("metes and bounds"), and the paper "survey" or plat of survey is intended only as a map of what is on the ground. The surveying method is to establish boundaries by running lines and fixing monuments on the ground while making field notes of such acts. From the field notes, plats of survey or "maps" are later drawn to depict that which was done on the ground. In establishing the original boundary on the ground the original surveyor is conclusively presumed to have been correct and if later surveyors find there is error in the locations, measurements or otherwise, such error is the error of the last surveyor. Likewise, boundaries originally located and set (right, wrong, good or bad) are primary and controlling when inconsistent with plats purporting to portray the survey and later notions as to what the original subdivider or surveyor intended to be doing or as to where later surveyors, working, perhaps, under better conditions and more accurately with better equipment, would locate the boundary solely by using the plat as a guide or plan. Written plats are not construction plans to be followed to correctly reestablish monuments and boundaries. They are "as built" drawings of what has already occurred on the ground and are properly used only to the extent they are helpful in finding and retracing the original survey which they are intended to describe; and to the extent that the original surveyor's lines and monuments on the ground are established by other evidence and are inconsistent with the lines on the plat of survey, the plat is to be disregarded. When evidence establishes a discrepancy between the location on the ground of the original boundary survey and the written plat of that survey the discrepancy is always resolved against the plat.

?ÿOK, well, it depends.?ÿ Better also consider the other location doctrines, once you have all have relevant evidence.

Acceptance of any monument comes down to how long has it been there, who knows it's there and has it been relied upon to establish improvements.?ÿ Numbers don't answer any of those questions.

I wonder how it fits the adjoining property calls?

In 36yrs a moved monument will look just as original unless there are acessories or witness or other references that also prove the location.

I worked with a surveyor that got go and come backwards every time he was on the hammering end of things and never wanted to take a final shot. I think he just wanted the monument to be off when he was not the one signing the work.

The most important thing to observe is that the monument has or has not been accepted thru the years it has been in its present location.

0.02

That is all understandable.?ÿ Problem as I see it is the fact that we are typically not going to court and worried about how the judge will rule but are usually working with a developer during a development project that has been planned based on a record boundary that is now 3' short because of a past survey error?ÿ (simplified for this example).?ÿ How do we explain the issue to the engineers, architects, lawyers.... and keep the project on time??ÿ I think this is the real world issue that plagues our profession.?ÿ JB I know from your classes you have a bottom drawer for these issues, but for many surveyors their lively hood depends on these timelines and keeping their client list happy.?ÿ Probably why I'm a government surveyor now :). Jp

Radar said: it's 3.5' west of where the plat says it should be ...?ÿ the neighbors deck, over the east line by 4.5 feet;

So it's either a small overlap or a big one.?ÿ Kinda takes some pressure off the decision.

A Harris: I wonder how it fits the adjoining property calls?

In 36yrs a moved monument will look just as original unless there are acessories or witness or other references that also prove the location.

This.?ÿ You can't survey just one lot; you need to check how it fits everything around it.

?ÿ

?ÿ

this is the neighbor's tax description:

S 1/2 OF N 1/2 OF NW OF NE SEC 14 EXC E 458.51 FT THEREOF & ALSO EXC W 720 FT THEREOF & EXC THAT POR CYD TO P CO FOR 129TH ST E

The description of the short plat is the east 244' of the west 720'...

If you were surveying the neighbors property, would you hold the corner I found, 3.5' west of the line; putting a bend in the line?

The 2 corners I found on this line were a foot deep with no sign of reliance for occupation. no one has maintained the ground along this line for a long time.

If the deck, as shown on the 1981 plat is still there and matches up the same with other original corners, I would tend to hold that and discount the SE corner.

The deck was put on the plat for a reason and is evidence.

?ÿ

Hey Brian,

Just had this convo with an Attorney this morning.

Can you cite the court case?

Thx!

Posted by: Kevin Olson

If the deck, as shown on the 1981 plat is still there and matches up the same with other original corners, I would tend to hold that and discount the SE corner.

The deck was put on the plat for a reason and is evidence.

?ÿ

The deck is still there and the location agrees with the 2 pins I found. They used these 2 pins to locate the deck...

Sounds like you have and accessory to prove it is undisturbed (the deck).?ÿ

An original undisturbed monument is never off, but it doesn't sound like you have an original. If the monument is on the?ÿexterior of the subdivision the line already existed, so it can't be original. You will have to weigh reliance with how well it fits the documents (or survey) that created that line.?ÿ

Posted by: RADAR

.....The plat shows the neighbors deck, over the east line by 4.5 feet; this agrees with the 2 undisturbed corners I found on the east line....Are you certain?ÿ

Are you certain that today's deck is the same as the 1981 deck? In this part of the world a deck could have been rebuilt 2 or 3 times in 36 years.?ÿ Treated lumber didn't exist back then.

If you are certain that the pin is original and undisturbed your choice is clear.?ÿ

What does the neighbors deed say, I never survey off tax information? I would not put a bend in the line, since the short plat does not have a bend.?ÿ

I would look for the other corners in the short plat, all 4 lots. Find out which ones are not in the location the Plat has them, then reset the ones of my lot according to the plat. If the deck is over, it's over the line, no need to try to make up rules and laws to get the deck off of the other property.?ÿ?ÿ

When the deck was placed on the short plat it indicated an ownership interest in part of the short plat by the neighbor. Have a look at this if you are not already familiar with it.?ÿ https://www.leagle.com/decision/198549841wnapp4571441

If there were a court case regarding this line, it may not be in the assessor's record and the deeds not corrected to reflect the position of the line as adjudicated or agreed to. I also would ask the question if the deck is the same now as it was in 1981? Perhaps some agreement was reached to a deck that predated what you are seeing today. 37 years is a long time for a deck in our climate.?ÿ

If it were me, I would be looking for the easterly corners of the neighboring property, or at least evidence of occupation on that side. You will be asked why they are loosing property and if you answer that question by stating that you did this search and here are your results you may not appear to be the villain. Are they the same owner since 1981?

Finally, why is there a small "p" in the lower left hand corner of this reply window??ÿ

?ÿ

Posted by: JB

Hey Brian,

Just had this convo with an Attorney this morning.

Can you cite the court case?

Thx!