Poll - Re-Surveys and the requirement for surveys and survey

Are you old enough to know what a "Look C Certificate" is?
There is no such word as Re-survey btw,there is such a term as re-tracement tho...
My 0.02 pennies 🙂

So what do you call it when you are surveying a piece of property that was at one time previously marked by a surveyor, but you are not re-tracing the previous survey?

And please don't tell me I HAVE to re-trace it just because someone at sometime previously had done so. If the is good reason for a re-tracement I will do it. but not that often.

I am old enough to know the difference between an original survey and a resurvey/retracement. Are you? More importantly, I know when to apply the principles of each. Do you? Or are you not tall enough? 🙂

> Are you old enough to know what a "Look C Certificate" is?
> There is no such word as Re-survey btw,there is such a term as re-tracement tho...
> My 0.02 pennies 🙂

Huh? No such word as resurvey? Someone better notify the BLM, they (or the GLO before the BLM was formed out of it) have been using the term for over 150 years.

A retracement is a type of resurvey. It may be all there is to the resurvey, or it may only be part of the objective of the resurvey.

A Look C Cert sounds like what a mortgage report amounts to in most parts of the country. In other words, junk with little or no value. What's it got to do with resurveys or retracements?

> So what do you call it when you are surveying a piece of property that was at one time previously marked by a surveyor, but you are not re-tracing the previous survey?
>

Negligence? Malpractice?

> And please don't tell me I HAVE to re-trace it just because someone at sometime previously had done so. If the is good reason for a re-tracement I will do it. but not that often.

Too bad. Most landowners want there boundaries found, not placed at some un-supportable theoretical mathematical guestimation. I guess I wont tell you. Maybe a court will. Best of luck.

This is nonsense. It's not an all or nothing proposition. The are times when occupation, the nature of descriptions and other evidence supports a retracement and times when it does not.

I know of one particular case here involving two adjacent parcels, an original surveyor and a follow on surveyor. The following surveyor found evidence that the original had missed regarding a mark on a meander line which changes the lot lines. In the case of the southern lot, the court found in favor of the newer survey. For the northern lot, with all the same survey facts, the court decided that since the adjacent owners had relied upon the existing corner, no matter that it was erroneous, it would hold. Oh, and the original surveyor lost his license because of his work here. So on the northern lot the court upheld a retracement, but not on the southern lot...go figure..

So the answer is..as usual..It Depends!

In most cases the owner wants staked what he paid for and has no idea that there may have been some older previous survey work and that is saying nothing as to the quality of that work. If they did know and know where the existing markers are, then why are they having me survey it?

I find that retracement surveys are mostly applicable when I have descriptions which are not matching occupation or which are in some way ambiguous. Blindly accepting any pipe or rebar I may find is what I would call negligence.

And how are you retracing all these surveys? I find it is nearly impossible to find any original notes or even maps from earlier surveyors. Recording only go back 35 years or so and there are 100's of surveyors that produced work.

Maybe you define retracement as working within a particular subdivision breakdown..I don't know, but I do know that as a surveyor it is very dangerous to hold to one particular rule except, "It Depends!"

"Too bad. Most landowners want there boundaries found, not placed at some un-supportable theoretical mathematical guestimation."

Want them FOUND? Most want them marked. Maybe out in "ranch-land" this is the case, but many fences here around acerage parcels are nothing more than livestock fences. Yes they may have been put up near where the landowner thought his lines likely were, but were never meant to be boundary fences.

So how do you go about "finding" boundaries? Myself, I use math, evidence, law and experience to lay out my theoretical boundaries and check it against the field work. My work is never a guestimation or unsupportable.

But this has devolved in to the age old fence vs. deed argument, and that is not what I originally was interested in. I understand most of your work is centered on retracing existing surveys. Good for you. I won't question your decision that retracements are called for as I have no idea what things are like where you are just as it can be different from county to county here.

Most of my work is not retracing some previous survey. Most parcels have not been previously surveyed and for many of those that have been, there is not nearly the information available to retrace them.

If you can't retrace or locate the established boundary then the survey you provide will be a resurvey. In the resurvey you will essentially be laying down new lines between the adjoining landowners. This is quite a common thing I'd agree. Where I have a different take on it is the authorization to do the resurvey. You are not authorized by statute to lay down new lines between landowners as that is adjudication of the boundary lines. There is a simple solution to this problem and that is to get the authorization of the common adjoining landowners to do the resurvey and accept the resurvey as their common boundary line. This is what I don't see happening at least where I work. Many times the first indication that an adjoiner gets that a survey of his boundary is going on is when the new markers shows up completely in a different location than where he thinks his boundary his. Maybe the line is not where the adjoiner believes but you'd think a surveyor would have enough respect for landowners to at least contact them before upsetting the peace.

It's not always easy to get all on board and sometimes it extends the time to completion a lot. I'm just finishing up a survey that took 18 months to get everyone on board. I simply told my client I wouldn't mark the property until we got agreement. In the end it took less time and cost far less than going to court. These adjoiners are "friends" at this point and no one feels they were took advantage of or railroaded.

Yeah, it won't always happen this way but I believe in the majority of cases things can be worked out. Think of the liability removed from the surveyor as opposed to an opinion that needs to be litigated in court and can result in damages if your resurvey opinion is wrong.

:good:

It seems the original question is whether you are setting new markers on a given boundary as opposed to finding or replacing existing ones previously set. If you want to get technical and invoke the BLM's definition, a dependent re-survey requires holding and reestablishing the position of the original corners and markers which have been previously set/established; nothing is being changed. An independent resurvey is a new survey which does not incorporate any of the original work and will actually lead to a cancellation of the original survey (generally because it was performed fraudulently). The one key to all resurveys is to protect the bona fide rights of lands passed into private ownership. Remember, this is the BLM rule and the BLM is for whom the manual was written. As an independent contractor surveying private lands I look to the BLM as evidence regarding the established section corners of which I am bound to recover and honor. Albeit, the methods set forth in the manual surely have a huge impact on the evolution of procedures for the surveying private land and when studied, it becomes very clear how the rules of surveying private lands are certainly descended from the rules set forth in the manual and adopted by most states.
Now, that being said, I do not perform many resurveys of private lands because most clients do not have lot corners previously set. I am doing an original survey which just so happens to be dependent on an original GLO survey or resurvey. If the property were previously surveyed by me or another surveyor than I could endeavor to do either a dependent or independent resurvey. What I do will depend on who performed that previous work and when. I would never hang my hat on, and blindly accept a survey performed by a land owner, and there are a handful of LS's in this area who lost their license or are currently known to do lousy work. I will surely do my own independent resurvey. Yes, there is likely plenty of case law in all jurisdictions which provide for the reliance on erroneously marked boundary but this does not give credence to blindly accepting those marks especially if they have not met the time frame and have not been relied upon. These are two key elements which need to be established and proven. Similarly, just because there is a deed written does not mean the land has been surveyed. That description may have relied on sectional work (good or bad) and which may mandate holding onto that basis of work but I still would not consider this a resurvey of a boundary.

How is a boundary established then?

"You are not authorized by statute to lay down new lines between landowners as that is adjudication of the boundary lines."

Where do you get this from? I am not talking about surveying federal lands, if that is what you are referring to.

In the state of Washington the term 'practice of land surveying' is defined in law as .."the establishment of corners, lines, boundaries and monuments, the laying out and subdivision of land, the defining and locating of corners, lines, boundaries and monuments of land after they have been established,..."

The term resurvey has a particular meaning in term of the survey of federal lands and for the BLM. I would not use it in the case of state surveys. I would instead use the term retracement.

"There is a simple solution to this problem and that is to get the authorization of the common adjoining landowners to do the resurvey and accept the resurvey as their common boundary line."

This is just not realistic and no one here that I know of does this or ever has. The process you describe would most likely not be legal here and would cause many problems. Many cities and most counties here have statutes strictly controlling boundary line adjustments. If they saw a recorded survey from you in which the resulting descriptions of the property differed from original deeds they would consider that an illegal adjustment and no permits would be granted on the involved lots. Maybe you are not changing the descriptions but just noting differences on your survey from deed to agreed? Eventually the powers that be would catch on and it would be stopped. What would stop parties that wanted to change their line from simply "agreeing" to some other line not according to their deeds in order to facilitate some other purpose? This is ripe for mis-use.

Given this, I fully acknowledge that only a court can determine a boundary, but as a surveyor I mark, in my opinion, where the proper court of jurisdiction would place the marker. If there is a case of some sort of mutual recognition of a boundary by adjoining owners, unwritten title transfers do not actually take place until a court directs it. For the most part, my job is to bring the existence of these possible claims to the attention of my client so that he can pursue a proper remedy.

Unless you are changing the deeds to match your agreed upon lines you are simply pushing the problem down the line to when someone purchases and decides he wants what he paid for.

How could it not be legal for the landowners to have control over the establishment of their common boundary line? Who's land is it? Even the courts can't determine a boundary line other than to settle a dispute between landowners that can't settle the issue themselves.

I was not making any reference to boundary line adjustments. Boundary line adjustments require the conveyance of real estate between the parties. A surveyor can monument the new line and it is being done with the authorization of the landowners which conclude the adjustment by a conveyance recorded in the deed records. So in reality the landowners established the boundary (signed and recorded the conveyance), the surveyor was just the tool to get the work done.

Why isn't getting the landowners authorization realistic. Don't have the time or budget to contact the folks you are taking the liberty of establishing their boundary (adjudicating). Regardless of what the pie in the sky licensing statute states (boiler plate in most states) you won't find any court ruling that states a surveyor can adjudicate and establish an uncertain boundary line between landowners. You can find plenty of case law where the courts accept landowners agreements and establishment of boundaries.

Actually I'd have to agree with you about local agencies taking regulatory control over boundaries. It's due to ignorance and not having a survey profession willing to stand up for landowners and the law.

If you really dig in deep you might discover that the courts frown on rewriting descriptions also. Yeah I know that the regulators continually push to rewrite that description and that someday we will get to some utopia where the math and the records are in perfect alignment. Ain't never going to happen and it doesn't need to. You own the title to your land by the deed description, the first one when the parcel was created. The boundaries are where they were established hopefully by the original document that created them and was done with some mathematical precision. But we all know that wasn't the case for millions of parcels in the past. Even the math in the original PLSS plats is not all that precise (it is what they measured but not all that precise by today's standards). So the deed records give you your title and modern surveys can give the precision of the record and the measured of the established boundary. That's why we record deeds and file survey's in a separate place where they don't affect the deed records.

Maybe I missed out somewhere but I've never been able to retrace what was never done. Find something that never existed, yet it seems surveyors are able to do it every day unilaterally without the knowledge of some of the parties affected. Interesting, eh?

Actually unwritten title transfers never take place, it goes against the Statute of Frauds which requires written conveyances. Establishing an uncertain boundary is NOT A CONVEYANCE it's just locating the boundary between the existing title and doesn't change the title or the description. Yes the precise mathematics may not be exact between the title description and the actual location on the ground but that is more the reality than the exception. How many PLSS 40's you found that were perfectly square and exactly 1320 feet by the most exact measurement possible?

The fabric doesn't fit together perfect by the title records. So what else is new? Doesn't mean its all wrong? For those that need the measurements on a nats butt, go retrace the established boundaries and report the measured vs the record, file the survey so anybody who needs it in the future can find it. Why can't that work? If the boundary is uncertain get the authorization of the landowners to survey a line that they accept and establish the location of their common boundary. It's their right as owners of the land. Yeah and I certainly agree that they can't abuse or misuse this right to establish their common boundary to move a boundary from the location where it should be established according to the evidence.

"How could it not be legal for the landowners to have control over the establishment of their common boundary line? Who's land is it? Even the courts can't determine a boundary line other than to settle a dispute between landowners that can't settle the issue themselves."

Because it is the law in most counties and many cities here. Don't blame surveyors either, as we have fought this when it has come up, with little success though.

In this state any interest in land must be by deed, which must be in writing. That is by warranty, bargain and sale, or quit claim deed. If the common boundary land owners want interest in land that is different than what is described in their deeds, then there must be some form of conveyance to alter the existing written deeds.

They can settle this themselves through a state statute that allows for agreements when a boundary line is unknown or in dispute. In this case a survey is required showing the marked agreed on line and there must also be an agreement including language meeting the requirements for the conveyance of real property. Both the survey and agreement must be recorded and reference one another. I do quite a few of these and they almost always start with a survey indicating that the deed lines are not where at least one of the parties thought they were. But believe me, the county checks these prior to recording to make sure we are not doing this to avoid their lengthy and expensive BLA process.

"Don't have the time or budget to contact the folks you are taking the liberty of establishing their boundary (adjudicating). Regardless of what the pie in the sky licensing statute states (boiler plate in most states) you won't find any court ruling that states a surveyor can adjudicate and establish an uncertain boundary line between landowners. You can find plenty of case law where the courts accept landowners agreements and establishment of boundaries."

No, generally I don't have the time or budget, nor is anyone willing to pay for it. I am not adjudicating anything outside of what any land surveyor does when placing lines where in his opinion the proper court would. Which is my job. The boundary line is established in the deed or deeds of the owners of the opposing sides of a given line. Discrepancies in the two deeds not withstanding. I mark the interest my client has in real property on the ground. There may be issues of interpretation, construction, priority of title, recording issues, use of extrinsic evidence, possessory evidence which conflicts with the written evidence and on and on. In some cases on the ground evidence may weigh more than the words in the description, but sometimes not. Deed warranties attach to that which is described in the deed so care needs to be taken in marking of boundaries different than those described.

"Maybe I missed out somewhere but I've never been able to retrace what was never done. Find something that never existed, yet it seems surveyors are able to do it every day unilaterally without the knowledge of some of the parties affected. Interesting, eh?"

I really have no idea what you are talking about here.

In the end, I think we probably agree on most of this, with the exception of the need or requirement to notify the adjacent owner. I just can't imagine this scenario:

Me - Hello

Phone - Click zzzzzzzzzz....

I'd be in business about as long as my savings held out (a month these days).

> How could it not be legal for the landowners to have control over the establishment of their common boundary line? Who's land is it?

A pair of land owners who engage in moving the boundary from the record position to a mutually desired position is in violation of the statute of frauds: they have engaged in an unwritten transfer of land. Just because they call a surveyor to make a map does not satisfy the requirement of the SoF because a survey, recorded or not, does NOT contain any conveyance language. They have essentially engaged in a hand-shake agreement to give or exchange property which is absolutely illegal in every state. The only possible caveat to this is a subdivision by survey or sale but that is a weak connection to your point since this type of conveyance affects only one person's land. But even in this case, a deed must be written for impending land transfer.

>Even the courts can't determine a boundary line other than to settle a dispute between landowners that can't settle the issue themselves.

When else, other than to settle a dispute, would the courts need to determine a boundary? I don't understand this point. I suppose you are right: a judge or court cant just throw down a hammer and proclaim some random boundary has been moved.

In general terms, a surveyor should only stray from the written record when it is unclear or ambiguous. If two adjoiners have good, surveyable deeds, then that is where the corner markers should be set. If they dont like the results then they can perform a boundary line adjustment and or convey the difference.

> If you can't retrace or locate the established boundary then the survey you provide will be a resurvey.

This statement makes no sense. how can it be a resurvey if there is nothing to retrace or locate?

> In the resurvey you will essentially be laying down new lines between the adjoining landowners.

How can it be a resurvey if you are laying down new lines? 're- a prefix meaning “again” or “again and again” to indicate repetition'

> Where I have a different take on it is the authorization to do the resurvey. You are not authorized by statute to lay down new lines between landowners as that is adjudication of the boundary lines.

But this is exactly what you are claiming to be doing (below), and of which you just spent 18 months completing such work. Laying down a 'virgin' line is what we do and when the deeds are not clear, then we start earning our keep and doing what no other profession can do--interpret the evidence and stake out intent.

> There is a simple solution to this problem and that is to get the authorization of the common adjoining landowners to do the resurvey and accept the resurvey as their common boundary line.

Yes, that is a simple solution assuming the adjoiner agrees to give up his claim to the property which was properly conveyed to him in good faith and for which he paid good money. Good luck with that one! ...wow... Not to mention, this statement seems to run contrary to your earlier statement about lack of authority.

> This is what I don't see happening at least where I work.

And I can see why! Its a terrible business model if nothing else, unless you are able to convince both neighbors to pay your fee (half the surveys at twice the cost--admirable if so)

> Many times the first indication that an adjoiner gets that a survey of his boundary is going on is when the new markers shows up completely in a different location than where he thinks his boundary his.

And your point is...? Hell, I'll take it one further and admit to covering my corner markers at the request of my client who is fearful of them being removed, and who needs time to confer with an attorney.

> Maybe the line is not where the adjoiner believes but you'd think a surveyor would have enough respect for landowners to at least contact them before upsetting the peace.

I respect the legal line common to both boundaries and the proper execution of my duties first, I respect my client's decision to hire an expert to determine his boundary and to write a check. And somewhere way down at the bottom you will find my respect for an adjoiner who will spend the next $10k hiring an attorney over a strip of land that is worth $1,200

> I'm just finishing up a survey that took 18 months to get everyone on board. I simply told my client I wouldn't mark the property until we got agreement. In the end it took less time and cost far less than going to court. These adjoiners are "friends" at this point and no one feels they were took advantage of or railroaded.

sounds like you did about $10k worth of attorney's fees for the cost of a survey. Good luck with that business model.

> Yeah, it won't always happen this way but I believe in the majority of cases things can be worked out.

And how much legal advice did you provide to all parties during this process?

> Think of the liability removed from the surveyor as opposed to an opinion that needs to be litigated in court and can result in damages if your resurvey opinion is wrong.

I am thinking of the new found liability of legal actions against the surveyor who is engaging in the practice of law by providing legal advice to both parties. Hold on to your wallet and LS card when one of these 'resurveys' takes a turn for the worst and the neighbor engages a real attorney who in turn reports you to the board of licensing.

Not saying you should refrain from providing an opinion based on experience but the minute you think you understand all the nuances of real estate law is the day you need to sit for the bar.

If the position of a boundary line is uncertain how can you determine that it moved or from the position that it was moved from when it's position is established and fixed in place by the landowners? Yeah it must be reasonable such as a line that should be straight between corners shouldn't take bends around buildings and such. Usually the line should have some physical evidence of where it is agreed to. If there is nothing to indicate where the line has been agreed to then you are to the last resort the record. Then the record for each side of the line may not be in agreement so you still need the landowners input and agreement.

There is case law to pretty much determine what the outcome should be in every situation but seems what most want to do including surveyors and regulators is do the math. If the math can't easily solve it then we do quit claims deeds all around and hunt down the relative of the long dead. Why, because nobody understands, studies or applies the correct boundary law.

On recent source where you might begin to get an understanding would be to read Lucus's book "The Pin Cushion Effect."

Every establishment of the location of an uncertain boundary line is not a boundary line adjustment and conveyance of title. Unwritten transfer of title is something surveyors and others made up. It doesn't exist, doesn't happen, it violates the statute of frauds. The title document whereby you are given title doesn't need to be in perfect alignment with the actual location of the boundary on the ground mathematically. Its practically impossible. Just because your title document isn't perfect doesn't mean there is any defect that needs to be corrected by doing boundary line adjustments and passing quit claim deeds all around.

And yeah the ignorance really gets out of control when the local regulators get involved and start rejecting everything because the math doesn't close to a hundredth of a foot. Yeah lets do the math everyone out of high school can do that in a CAD program. Boundary law understanding takes a whole different logic to understand and research and study well beyond a little trigonometry.

So is messing with landowners boundaries a business model that should be fine tuned to make the most profit?

Is land surveying something separate from boundary law which can be done without applying the law which is strictly the domain of attorney's?

I don't know, I could save a lot of trouble for many landowners just by inspection of their deeds and just say, contact your attorney, this record is imperfect, ain't going to match up to the total record. There is going to be gaps and overlaps in your title and the section isn't perfectly square like the metes in your deed. It's just a mess but I can stake it on the ground and show you just how messed up the math is, its my business model.

Anyway it took me ten years of asking and debating these questions, research and such to come to where I'm at and I'm sure I have much more to learn. The surveying profession over the last 3 or 4 decades has tried so hard to remove itself from applying the law and convincing itself there is no liability for ignoring the law which is the domain of attorneys only that its no wonder the imperfect record and messed up math have become KING. The real sad part is it is landowners that suffer the consequences, the very folks that need surveyors to help them out. Don't think that the public won't throw those under the bus that cause problems instead of resolving them.

Also a survey of a parcel that has never been surveyed (that can be proven in the record) is a resurvey because the law presumes that a survey was done when the parcel was created. So you would need to overcome that presumption before you can claim you are doing the original survey. So if the parcel is occupied with physical evidence that resembles the record, although not perfect to modern standards, how did that happen? Well somebody measured it out on the ground and the landowners have relied upon that. So it was surveyed and if you resurvey it placing the lines differently (according to the almighty record) you are resurveying placing the lines other than the original survey.

Also a original survey is done for a landowner by their authorization. When a parcel is already created in the record you now have two landowners on each side of the line. So these landowners can authorize the survey of the line, maybe an original survey but both landowners need to authorize and accept the survey for it to be valid. Who owns the land? How can anyone else be in control? Ignoring the landowners rights just defies all logic.

Actually with regards to my 18 month project. I placed the parcel where the existing evidence pointed to it being originally. One of the adjoiners thought they owned the parcel because the owners had been absent for about fifty years. So that was the main conflict. Also all the owners where upset due to the placing of new section monuments by a supposed dependent resurvey that shifted all their boundaries that had been physically in place for about a hundred years. These folks didn't even want a surveyor near their property. But I got them all together, everyone was given the chance for input and in the end they all agreed to where the parcel was placed according to my determination of the original evidence. So in the end the parcel has been located where it was originally with everyone's blessing but it doesn't agree with the modern dependent resurvey which itself was not authorized by the landowners and used proportion to set makers from many miles away which themselves cant be proven to be original. Proportion can be a method of mass boundary destruction when used blindly and in ignorance of lots of other evidence.

> I am thinking of the new found liability of legal actions against the surveyor who is engaging in the practice of law by providing legal advice to both parties. Hold on to your wallet and LS card when one of these 'resurveys' takes a turn for the worst and the neighbor engages a real attorney who in turn reports you to the board of licensing.

All people are presumed to know the law. A licensed professional had better know the law in his area of supposed expertise or he is not a true professional. I would much rather be if front a licensing board explaining that I do know the law and have correctly applied it to arrive at my professional opinion concerning the location of a boundary line than trying to convince a board OR a judge that I have no duty to know and apply the laws of property boundaries as a licensed professional. Since when is knowing and correctly applying the law in the performance of ones professional duties prohibited?

> Not saying you should refrain from providing an opinion based on experience but the minute you think you understand all the nuances of real estate law is the day you need to sit for the bar.

I don't express my opinions based on experience, I express my opinions of a property boundary location based on evidence, facts derived from that evidence, and the law applied to those facts. That is NOT the practice of law, it the practice of Land Surveying. No, the landowners are not bound by my opinion, but they have hired me to express my correctly formulated opinion. That is the quasi-judicial function I not only perform, but am expected to perform.

I have been doing a little bit of research and have reread your posts for more clarity into your positions and points. If I read you correctly, the best I can gather is that yes, in the case of performing an original survey for the original grantor and grantee sharing a common boundary of land, your actions of involving both parties to hear their testimony, reviewing the extrinsic evidence, and then set markers based upon their intent and understanding of where that boundary is located would be an acceptable practice. As noted, this presumes you are the first guy to lay out the boundary on the ground (an original surveyor retracing the intent of the original parties).
If you are dealing with subsequent owners who have somehow misinterpreted the boundary, been ill advised, are acting fraudulently, are acting out of ignorance, etc, any or all of which actions have lead them to re-establish the boundary to being somewhere other than the position established by the originals, then they have little to no authority to hire you to come and establish the boundary through these similar acts. For them, their remedy is to perform a boundary line adjustment/agreement. In this scenario you, the surveyor, has no authority to set new monuments or otherwise establish a potential revisionists view of that original intent.
I know that was a bevy of long sentences but in essence we can become fence-line surveyors when we are working under the authority of the originals and we can put the line where the two parties have agreed and accepted. We would be laying out their intent which is paramount. Having testimony from both parties (testimony being one of the highest order of evidence) would make that boundary golden regardless of the written deed in many cases. Lacking either of those participants and their testimony, you must now engage in applying the principals of the rules of evidence, rules of construction, and pay attention to latent and patent ambiguities, all that good stuff the courts tell us to do. You must lay out the lines per the original intent and independent of occupation. Surveyors do not get to determine ownership but we do get to determine boundaries. We establish the boundary per the original intent based upon best available evidence and leave matters of title to the attorneys, owners, and courts.