Ughhhhhh It's the curse we live with as boundary surveyors.
Ten years ago a guy owned all of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of a given PLSS section. That is all he owned. He had it converted into a subdivision with numerous lots. Now, a surveyor comes along and must locate a lot that is on one of the borders of the subdivision. Apparently, his measurements for the quarter-quarter section differ from those of the fellow from ten years ago. His location of the lot does not match with the edge of the quarter-quarter section. Maybe off 0.04 feet or maybe off 4.00 feet.
Your thoughts would be appreciated.
Maybe he's going off subdivision pins instead of section corners.
Holy, too much to go through on this one. It could be an endless thread.
First; is it 4' or .04', second was it sold and built, third were the neighbor lots sold and built. That's a place to start.
If it's .04' then I'm only interested if the second surveyor puts the real corner .03'N, .03'E of the monument.
He shows no found lot corners. Only found markers are the four corners of the subdivision, which were shown ten years ago to be the quarter-quarter section. The new tract includes a strip across a portion of Lots 4,5 and 6, leaving remainders for those lots. (YES, we can do that. NO lot adjustments required)
If the 1/4-1/4 section was monumented 10 years ago then that's what it is.
To answer question of this nature, IMO, one must delve in to the world of unwritten boundary establishment doctrines. Acquiescence, estoppel, etc. So it is going to matter whether any improvements were built on these subdivision properties and if the limits of claimed ownership were clearly marked, as with a fence.
This is crazy to the way some other places operate, BUT, there are three sets of improvements (houses, driveways shed, etc.) on this new tract already. This new tract is being divied up into three subtracts that each involve two or three of the existing subdivision lots. In fact a new access easement is a fourth tract, you might say, to serve two of the new subtracts along the existing lanes.
But, the south line of original Lot 6, probably has a barb wire fence that was there prior to the subdivision creation 10 years ago. There is nothing manmade anywhere else near that line but grass, weeds, hedge trees and briar bushes.
@bstrand The current surveyor shows the south line of Lot 6 with a bearing different from the bearing shown for the quarter-quarter section line. Thus, two different lines. I suppose I could draw up all the lines and find out what the actual difference (and direction) is at both south corners of Lot 6. I don't want to do that, so that is why I posed the question above such that the actual difference is less important than the preferred solution.
Where do the owners of both sides think the line is. Maybe as diss a boundary line adjustment/aggrement if they all agree. Then no head scratching.
If lot 6 was in coincidence with the govt line at the time it came into being, it still is. Pretty simple. The new survey should be retracing, not resurveying by implying there are two lines. But you know that.
The current surveyor shows the south line of Lot 6 with a bearing different from the bearing shown for the quarter-quarter section line. Thus, two different lines.
How much difference? The bearings are pretty much never the same so the fact that they're different doesn't necessarily set off alarm bells.
If you found the subdivision corners, which are also the section corners, then it seems quite simple.
The surveyor shows two lines? One with record bearing between two corners and a second one with a new bearing to different corners for the same endpoints?
Or is the surveyor showing record and measured bearings?
Since GPS has been introduced I'm finding my surveys showing the same numbers as record, my measurement might very a tiny bit, but why even mention it. Is another surveyor likely to admonish me for showing 210.10' record and measured instead of 210.10' Record vs 210.12' Measured. Hasn't happened so far going on 40 years.
If we found the original mons they would hold regardless of perfect/imperfect measurements. Measurements may vary but the mons stay the same. Hold them and move on. If there were no mons then there is no original survey and there should be no issues with the new surveyor setting mons in accordance with his different measurements.
In the 25 years I've been surveying, I've had exactly one occasion when my measurements matched another surveyors, exactly, to the hundredth. Because of that my survey was cast into doubt and another surveyor was called in to repeat the exact same survey because none of my peers could accept this result from me to be true. I could only surmise that the presumption to be made is that if I scored the perfect shot, a hole in one, I must have somehow been cheating.
Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.
Unless he is depicting the south line of lot 6 and the quarter-quarter section line on the same survey with different bearings, the fact they have different bearings on 2 different documents does not mean he is calling them as two different lines. Especially if he shows them being monumented by the same monuments. Post what he has shown.
Since GPS has been introduced I'm finding my surveys showing the same numbers as record, my measurement might very a tiny bit, but why even mention it. Is another surveyor likely to admonish me for showing 210.10' record and measured instead of 210.10' Record vs 210.12' Measured. Hasn't happened so far going on 40 years.
I don't think there's anything wrong with doing it that way, but I personally don't have a problem showing record/measured for a 0.01' difference. I'm not trying to 1-up the other guy. I'm just showing what I happened to get that day while also acknowledging the equipment and procedures aren't perfect.
Plus I think eventually there will be a time/tectonic plate component associated with surveys and it'll be useful to help track monument movement, and copy/pasting record data over and over will actually be counterproductive.
Since GPS has been introduced I'm finding my surveys showing the same numbers as record, my measurement might very a tiny bit, but why even mention it. Is another surveyor likely to admonish me for showing 210.10' record and measured instead of 210.10' Record vs 210.12' Measured. Hasn't happened so far going on 40 years.
I don't think there's anything wrong with doing it that way, but I personally don't have a problem showing record/measured for a 0.01' difference. I'm not trying to 1-up the other guy. I'm just showing what I happened to get that day while also acknowledging the equipment and procedures aren't perfect.
Plus I think eventually there will be a time/tectonic plate component associated with surveys and it'll be useful to help track monument movement, and copy/pasting record data over and over will actually be counterproductive.
Breaking the record can cause title issues. Normally it slides over all the reviewer and title examiner's heads. For us surveyors we don't even think much about it cause it's part of our daily work life and we understand no measurement is ever going to be perfect. However, being at this a long time I've more than once run into issues with "breaking the record" using measurements. There is even a long dispute about it locally that led to the extraordinary process that we now observe in Federal platting.
All this got me thinking about the importance of the record, such as Lot sizes when a survey is done. The survey will never exactly match the Lot size, but changing it can cause problems with codes. So what's the correct way to proceed. Use the record, protect the Lot or plat a new acreage and put the Lot smaller than a minimum size.
Breaking the record can cause title issues.
Yeah, but the world isn't a static place. If title examiners can't comprehend that for some reason then that's their fault not ours.
I guess I haven't been in the business long enough to run into one of these people, but I did talk to a title officer once and asked him how much of a difference in dimensions there needs to be before it causes title problems. Admittedly this guy seemed really sharp and I think he's one of the ones who can see the forest through the trees, but he told me as long as the measurements are in the same ballpark it should be fine.
All this got me thinking about the importance of the record, such as Lot sizes when a survey is done. The survey will never exactly match the Lot size, but changing it can cause problems with codes. So what's the correct way to proceed. Use the record, protect the Lot or plat a new acreage and put the Lot smaller than a minimum size.
I've already run into this sort of issue just from sections not being perfect 640 acres. Counties would make an owner get a variance to split a "40" into a pair of 19.9s. Yes it's dumb, but in my experience the counties knew enough to not fight the variance application.
40 acres patented as 40, remain 40 acres until the 40 is split. It might be measured as 39.5 acres, but it's legally 40. If it's divided then it's a new parcel and it no longer is fixed.
40 acres patented as 40, remain 40 acres until the 40 is split. It might be measured as 39.5 acres, but it's legally 40. If it's divided then it's a new parcel and it no longer is fixed.
This came up for me this morning with a question from another surveyor asking if he needed to survey a patented 160 acre parcel that another surveyor carved out 40 acres from back in the 80s. While still maintaining that it is still an aliquot part, the reality is that the surveyor in the 80s may or may not have done a section breakdown, or more likely just ran out 1320 x 1320 turning 90's, who knows? In either case your post served to remind me that it's no longer the original 160 acres, hence they need to survey it and file a record of survey to remove any latent ambiguity on that remainder.
Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.