Here in California there is legislation being considered that addresses how unrecorded maps (privately held surveys) are treated when referenced on maps that are filed for record. This situation arises when unrecorded maps are used as a basis for a boundary determination. Currently in most CA counties copies of the privately held maps are not available to the public without contacting the Surveyor who prepared the filed map. Obtaining copies of these private surveys can be cumbersome or impossible if the Surveyor doesn’t cooperate.
The proposed changes to the Calif. PLS ACT would make it mandatory to 1) either submit a copy of the private survey to the local county surveyor’s office who could then provide copies of the private surveys upon request, or 2) a copy of the private survey would be included as a “reference page” with the recorded map.
Are privately held surveys an issue in Oregon? I’m interested in how this situation is handled in other states or does it come up?
Mike Ford
Sonoma County CA
Mendocino and Humboldt CSs have a lot of unrecorded Surveys.
Humboldt has a file number system which makes it really simple to reference on the Survey just like a recorded map.
Question from the Supra Latitudes-
Colleagues-
I don't quite understand the disclosure of an opinion (AKA "A Survey") by a cadastral surveyor to an unknown third party.
In Ontario, if we are creating a plan of subdivision/condominium or effectively creating a NEW parcel that is illustrated on a Reference Plan, these are registered or deposited in the Provincial land registry system and are thus publicly available documents (although the intellectual property in the 'work' is not transferred).
If I was to prepare an opinion of the extent of title and the visible improvements thereon for "Kent McMillan", our client, for his purchase of an existing parcel in Elora, this is called a Surveyor's Real Property Report (SRPR)and is only privy between the client (KMcM) and our office.
If another surveyor wishes to know if we have prepared any opinion 'in the area of', then we will provide information thereof.
Thus, my question: Are all surveyors' opinions in the various States, filed for the public to have access to see and copy ?
If so, where ?
Thank you
Cheers
Derek
_
Paul,
Your map is a good example of what everyone should do when holding a privately held survey as a basis for boundary determination. Not everyone in CA shares your open attitude to having access to that information. Some surveyors want to keep that private survey off the public record for their own reasons and purposes.
Derek,
If I understand the system in Canada, maps that create new parcels are filed with a public agency and are available to the public, which is the same in CA and most states the US. However, prior to 1972 in CA property could be subdivided by legal description and no map was filed. The “grant deed” was recorded in the county recorder’s office that facilitated the change of ownership. In some cases surveyors would survey those deeds and again would not file a map with the public agency. That’s one example of a privately held survey. Another example is a surveyor retraces a property boundary shown on an existing public map. These are the two most common examples of the privately held survey maps we’re talking about.
Dave,
There are several counties in CA that keep copies of private surveys that are submitted to the County Surveyor’s office (CS). The majority of the CSs don’t keep copies. That’s where the problem starts. In those counties that don’t the only way to get a copy is to contact the surveyor who references the private survey. That person is not obligated to cooperate. In those cases that information is in effect lost.
I posted the question on this forum to see how private surveys are regarded and handled in other states. CA has had since 1891 fairly stringent requirements when surveying property boundaries. These private surveys, by and large, should have been filed by the person (surveyor) who authored the map.
Mike
The LA County RS division actually made sheet 2 for me. Great bunch of guys in that department, I did not have to pay a cent for that sheet 😉
The county did take the position that they do not want to be custodian of the private surveys that are part of an RS, simply because of a storage and indexing problem of all the supporting documents that are submitted with each RS, so the second sheet was the answer. Supporting documents and case files are destroyed after five years I believe.
I see this as a two-pronged issue. Original boundary surveys (subdivisions) should always be filed as part of the title record either as a subdivision plat or minimally, as an exhibit to the deed. When this doesn't (or hasn't) happened, it's because surveyors failed to do the "right" thing by supplying a simple means for documenting the boundary location as originally determined, either through a map or a good description.
Retracement surveys are an entirely different matter. Retracement surveys express the surveyor's opinion as to the location of the boundary. There is nothing binding about the opinion, therefore it should not be part of the title record or should not serve as constructive notice if it is a part. (I know, there are lots of jurisdictions where they are; that doesn't mean they should be). Retracement surveys are more about documenting fading evidence than they are about the opinions expressed by the surveyors. Give me any document that discloses evidence about a boundary location, and I'll use it in accordance with the rules of evidence.
The filing of boundary evidence should always be held as the forefront of the surveyor's responsibility. The laws being proposed are attempting to legislate what surveyors should have been doing all along. You've got county surveyors looking for a hard-letter excuse as to why or why not allow the evidence into "their" records, on one hand, and private surveyors who are too selfish in their own reasons to realize the great benefit to themselves, their clients and the profession to take advantage of any method to perpetuate the evidence they have gathered for use of future generations.
Imagine what it will be like to survey property a century from now if surveyors fail to perpetuate boundary evidence in the form of a reliable record... Oh, we're already living with those consequences; we don't have to imagine much.
JBS
That's some Robert Hall Bullstuff if I ever heard of it! Why in the hell should I have to give a copy of my map if I don't want to? More to the point, what about privacy?
JB
The issue isn't so much original vs retracement. We're generally not talking about recent records but in Mike Ford's area, more often records reflecting surveys performed several decades ago.
The map which is not in the record often can lead the surveyor to original evidence where no other records exist pertaining to certain evidence. In that area, it was not uncommon that the original subdivider would set points (often redwood hubs) at lot corners but not show them or note them on the subdivision map.
These unfiled survey maps, performed several decades after the subdivision and several decades prior to the current day often show perpetuation of the original points, thus providing a pedigree for monuments which may still exist but not appear in any record.
The unfiled maps prove to be quite important in many cases. A body of unfiled records is not rare in many parts of CA, but is particularly common in Mike's corner of the state.
The CLSA Legislative Committee heard concerns from Mike and from another surveyor on two sides of the issue. Each has legitimate concerns that need to be considered. I'm co-chairing the subcommittee focusing on this issue, so will be quite interested in comments generated here.
From my perspective, the ends should be assuring the preservation of as many unfiled survey records as possible. The extent to which that can be done while providing easy and inexpensive access to the records is where we will need to find balance.
On one hand, it serves the public well to make them as available and inexpensive as possible. On the other hand, there are many surveyors who have spent considerable amounts of money and time in obtaining and maintaining these collections, and they have the commercial value to consider.
There are other considerations and I'd like to know the thoughts of surveyors in other jurisdictions, particularly in states with recording laws.
