Insufficient monumentation, to adequately retrace.
🙁
Just do your absolute best and dare anyone to prove you wrong...it's pretty much all you can do.
Excess monumentation. And nothing really seems to agree with anything else.
Agree Holy. Sometimes having sparse is easier to sort out than too much, most of which conflicts. Neither are fun though.
1.) Surveyors that fail to show distances to reference corners set off of the roadway.
2.) Surveyors that show neither found or set monuments on subdivision plats.
3.) Attorneys that fail to acknowledge reference corners in the property descriptions they compose.
4.) Attorneys that write “to a point” on property descriptions, when the survey plat on their desk calls for a monument.
5.) Property descriptions that fail to mention bounding landowners, thus creating ambiguity as to intent.
6.) Working in a state with no mandatory MTS.
7.) Working in a non-recording state.
Of course if they fixed 6 & 7, most of the others would go away.
Peeves (todays)
surveyors who unknowingly pin cushion themselves........
8. survey parties that can't work well together. i can be accused of this, at times
Peeves (todays)
> surveyors who unknowingly pin cushion themselves........
I had a good old friend in Calaveras County many years ago who has long since passed away One time we were talking about a well known problem section in the area.
"Did you know that Section 6 over by Moke Hill has got 5 center of sections set?" he says.
"Jeez, Pat, I didn't know that."
"Yeah, and two of them are mine!"
Plats showing a meandering line along the rear line of two abutting subdivisions because the found monuments are slightly off line.
9. Survey showing no found monuments and/or no referenced monuments.
Compiled Parcel Maps (i.e. no field survey). All fabricated from record data.
> Insufficient monumentation, to adequately retrace.
>
> 🙁
I Have done as BL said more than once. I have Yet to have anyone successfully argue with me.
SJ
> 1.) Surveyors that fail to show distances to reference corners set off of the roadway.
>
> 2.) Surveyors that show neither found or set monuments on subdivision plats.
>
> 3.) Attorneys that fail to acknowledge reference corners in the property descriptions they compose.
>
> 4.) Attorneys that write “to a point” on property descriptions, when the survey plat on their desk calls for a monument.
>
> 5.) Property descriptions that fail to mention bounding landowners, thus creating ambiguity as to intent.
>
> 6.) Working in a state with no mandatory MTS.
>
> 7.) Working in a non-recording state.
>
> Of course if they fixed 6 & 7, most of the others would go away.
No. 3 & 4. can be fixed. Do not allow L@#$#rs to write descriptions. In Texas it is defined as practicing surveying. Makes a L@#$3r liable for a fine that is quite a bit more that what most would charge for writing the deed.
No. 3 & 4. can be fixed. Do not allow L@#$#rs to write descriptions. In Texas it is defined as practicing surveying. Makes a L@#$3r liable for a fine that is quite a bit more that what most would charge for writing the deed.
Stopping Attorneys from writing property descriptions would require legislative action; and that aint gonna happen in this state. Most of the Legislators are Lawyers, plus the attorneys are a powerful lobbying group.
It’s not as big a problem as it used to be, since all new parcels now require a subdivision plat. These newly created lots are mostly described by reference to the lot number and Plan Book.
The attorneys in Allegheny County (surrounding Pittsburgh) mostly defer to the surveyor when a metes and bounds description is needed. The attorneys in the outlying counties mostly keep that work for themselves. :beer:
