Philosophizing-surveyor style

Set whatever you prefer where YOU THINK the corners are supposed to be. Let the DOT prove you wrong. I don't think this is significantly different than setting bars at DOT alleged corners like we do routinely on jobs adjoining such DOT ownership or right-of-way where no monuments can be found. We are doing the best we can to protect the rights of our clients and their adjoiners, whomever the adjoiners may be.

There are no original monuments. All you have is paper. Go forth and pillage and plunder.

Pablo B-)

What if a non- DOT surveyor goes out and places pins that appear to contradict the line as evidenced by the lath?

- part of my question here is do other DOTs pin their new r/w upon or in conjunction with acquisition - and what are seen as pros and cons to doing so?

Now that's a really good question.

Here the standard has been lowered to setting 60's or 40's and a lath at the beginning of acquisition. It seems they never get replaced with anything later. It would make all sorts of sense that they be set permanently after final construction, if not before.

Of course, that is probably more accurate than the old square concrete markers that were generally set by construction contractors with no surveyor anywhere to be found.

> - part of my question here is do other DOTs pin their new r/w upon or in conjunction with acquisition - and what are seen as pros and cons to doing so?

The way that baby gets split in Texas is that the DOT has it's consultants set rod and cap monuments to mark the boundaries of the acquisition and in the deed states that the rod and cap monuments will be replaced by concrete right-of-way markers when all is said and done.

It works in the sense that the grantor is agreeing to the future replacement of the original marker, but it doesn't work in that the time lag between removal of rod and cap monument and its replacement isn't explicitly spelled out. It also doesn't work in the sense that it's typically some consultant (and maybe not the same consultant) who actually does both the original monument setting and the replacement monument punching.

So, it all translates as "your boundaries are belong to us!"

In theory, if accurate NAD83 coordinates were given in the deed of acquisition, that would provide a means to verify the second-generation markers that subsequently appeared. In practice, of course, what you'd get would be Consultant Coordinates in some bastardized system that only looked like some standard projection.

> - part of my question here is do other DOTs pin their new r/w upon or in conjunction with acquisition - and what are seen as pros and cons to doing so?
Since the property changed hands on the basis of - I presume - a plan, with control and a centerline, and a quotation of station and offsets then those are the controlling elements. Unless the deed specifically references monuments that are to be set at a later date. Otherwise any monuments that may be set are merely in the manner of a resurvey rather than an original survey.

If the monuments that are subsequently set fall within a reasonable error ellipse (<0.1', say) for a proper job of staking following surveyors should apply the virtual hammer and just call in on the corner.

If a monument is set in error by a few feet it may eventually acquire the dignity of an occupation line and all that goes with that. If the property owners act in reliance with it's placement.

If the monuments aren't in place at the time of the deed, or specifically referenced in the deed, I don't think that they have the dignity of original monuments.

"So the lath were placed during the acquistion process so the land owner and the R/W agent negotiate the land deal."

The lath are quite clearly the original monuments! They were set so that they buyer and seller could see the boundaries...

The parcel (r/w take) didn't exist when the lath were set. It didn't exist until the deed was written and the necessary steps were taken for title to change hands. So, unless the lath are called for in the deed they're out of it.

The r/w control point are it until someone sets monument at the intersections of the adjoining parcels and the monuments go unchallenged for a long enough time to become r/w control points and parcel corners.

> The parcel (r/w take) didn't exist when the lath were set. It didn't exist until the deed was written and the necessary steps were taken for title to change hands. So, unless the lath are called for in the deed they're out of it.
>
> The r/w control point are it until someone sets monument at the intersections of the adjoining parcels and the monuments go unchallenged for a long enough time to become r/w control points and parcel corners.

Agreed; if the deed is a distance referenced by station and offset to a line monumented by R/W control points, then that is what controls. Even if the lath was set too near the R/W line and believed to be by both buyer and seller at the time to be the controlling monuments, I would still construe most strongly against the grantor and set the corners from the R/W control points.

As for the second instance, my knee-jerk reaction is that you can't claim adverse possession or acquiescence against the crown state, but that may vary depending on your state's laws. Here in California, I'd say good luck arguing against anything but the full measure as controlled by the R/W stationed line.

I agree that an adverse possession claim would probably loss in court. I was thinking more along the lines of original monuments and repose.

Adverse Possession is a statutory title doctrine, boundaries are a separate question.

California does not have a pure Acquiescence Doctrine.

Really it comes down to this, to wit: how in the heck are you supposed to know where the Engineer's centerline is located? If the only thing left from decades ago are the CHC monuments then what else is there? Who made the decision to let construction contractors set those? Certainly not the innocent abutters.

ROW is set before construction with 2" cap and rebar. Then the big monuments are set after construction destroyed the 2" caps. Once in a while a cap survives and is replaced. They are not referenced in the deed. Deeds are written somewhere in the bowels of the DOT.

It seems like most of the time when DOT work comes up in some states, the monumentation is described as sloppy.

Why aren't contractors to a DOT held to the same standards of practice that you as a private PLS would be held to? You are required to accurately set durable monuments and document so that another surveyor can follow the footsteps.

What can surveyor organizations do about the loose practices?

> What can surveyor organizations do about the loose practices?

Not much when the sloppy practice is codified.

Code of Iowa
Chapter 354.4 Subsection 3(a).
"Acquisition plats shall not be required to conform to the provisions of chapter 355."

In case you're wondering, Chapter 355 is titled "Standards for Land Surveying."

"In theory, if accurate NAD83 coordinates were given in the deed of acquisition, that would provide a means to verify the second-generation markers that subsequently appeared. In practice, of course, what you'd get would be Consultant Coordinates in some bastardized system that only looked like some standard projection."

Absolutely true, sometimes I wonder how many surveyors understand this. The reality is the locations would probably be close enough that it would not matter.