Question for the Experts - Dependent Resurveys

Oregon County Surveyors are statutorily responsible for maintaining the cadastre (funding is frequently short, so it doesn't always happen everywhere all the time, but so it goes). So they are restoring PLSS corners and potentially affecting landowners routinely.?ÿ

In Oklahoma the DOT would have us break out the entirety of any section that touched any portion of a highway right of way under survey. So we frequently restored PLSS corners that potentially affected landowners in those sections and the adjoining ones.

Of course, just because some smart-alecky surveyor sets monuments doesn't bind anybody to accept them.?ÿ?ÿ

Unless the county got the approval of the residents, I don't know if the newly set corners are valid.

@norman-oklahoma

In Utah, County Surveyors are to maintain the PLSS.  My county doesn't have county surveyor.  The recorder bid the work to the lowest bidder, has no idea how to qualify the contractor.  Qualification based may be used in Utah but is not required.  Lowest bidder gets the work, county wasted the money.  Probababy has great negative value due to the damage.

@true-corner

in my opinion, at a minimum, the use of proportion to set a " lost" corner should require much research to show it "is lost" and then the approval of at least a super majority of the landowners affected to set and accept the corner.  They should sign the survey plat which is filed or recorded in a public record.

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah..........unrealistic dreaming!  Back to the boundary agreements.

"Bogus theory?"

?ÿYou are confusing federal authority resurveys, what Congress was debating, with State authority resurveys. A state authority surveyor can survey any boundary he pleases, but of course the landowners are not bound by it, because a State authority survey is just one surveyors opinion.

In your county you ignore the county resurvey at your peril if others are using those corners. If you find originals then of course they mean something, but if you are doing your own proportions, even from found originals, your positions probably won't hold water.

?ÿ

?ÿ

@aliquot

I avoid proportion like the plague.?ÿ Only when I truly decide after all the research that I can imagine revealing some evidence, and none is found will I use ƒ??lost cornerƒ? procedures. And then I can't walk away without some remorse.

What is used by others??ÿ Is that surveyors or landowners, both or some "others."?ÿ The corner will basically become controlling to those that accept it.?ÿ So, what is acceptance??ÿ 20 years, agreement, building a fence to it.?ÿ If one party accepts in some ƒ??legalƒ? fashion and the opposite landowner doesnƒ??t are things locked in.?ÿ What about the long-accepted fence corner that was there long before the proportion and remains today? In a sectional situation moving or placing one corner if applied all across the section does major damage.?ÿ If you do 20 sections in a private sort of devloped area you are affecting a LOT of landowners, I'd say at least a thousand in this situation.?ÿ I wonder if that was even considered.

All been debated before, but I donƒ??t see much here anymore.?ÿ At a minimum a surveyor should look around before they put something in the ground.?ÿ I think things are getting better here in Utah.?ÿ We are raising up a better group of younger surveyors. The chaos from the past remains though.?ÿ Iƒ??ve sort of concluded this problem will never go away. In current terminology we have "flattened the curve."

?ÿ

If the pins in the ground marking prorated positions are in conflict with good evidence of the actual corners then have a chat with the other surveyors if possible, give them an opportunity to get together and resolve the situation.?ÿ

If you can't do that I would forge ahead and do what I see as the correct retracement. This happens all the time, you say the landowners basically ignored the math pins, that doesn't give those pins much authority, if any. When you set your corners, they end up following old occupation lines then why do any corrective agreements??ÿ

Take a stand on the correct positions, file a record, I would think with the right approach it can be all corrected, no title issues, no boundary line agreements to mush up ownership.?ÿ

I've had surveyors agree to remove their monument, I've agreed to have mine removed, the BLM has agreed to remove theirs, it happens.?ÿ

?ÿ

I always have high respect your posts.

I've found that the right approach can work wonders in these situations. If you can present your position without confrontation, with background, with theory, with facts backing up your opinion it will be very helpful to get results.?ÿ

There was a time when proration really became ubiquitous, it wasn't just private surveyors but governmental entities that pushed it. We of course all know this, but the tide has changed or is changing, I sure have, I don't prorate anything if I can avoid it and everytime I do I cringe.?ÿ

It does seem like you have lots of evidence for these corners and that evidence is still in repose, now would be the time to begin to "fix" things if you have the backing, by backing I mean interested parties, landowners willing to see the surveys done.?ÿ

?ÿ

@mightymoe

?ÿ

With the tools we have now you can do a lot in a short time.

Take points you have shot. Everything I do is in Lat long. Pop them out to a kml in Google Earth Pro. Shift the background to fit some of the points you can see (fence corners of other features you located). Get some true original corners located, I like to get them at the township boundaries. Draw the north/south section line, make the bend for the last line. Look how it fits the occupation. Not too hard to see what fits and what looks off. Go get some shots on the good stuff to tighten things up. Get deeds to further check occupation lines. Check for 1320 club original lay outs. Start checking highway plans and railroad plans for more data. Study more deeds for tie distances. Etc., etc., etc. It will start to fall in place. Stick out like a neon light where the original occupation was if it hasnƒ??t already been shifted by later surveys. At least that is how is in my rural area. Luckily many landowners just ignore some crazy surveys that fall way off fences and don't move the fence. So original occupation is preserved. You can also see where fences have been removed. A scar will remain for a long time, on the ground and from above. Pop back to older aerial photos. You can go back a long time, but they won't be orthorectified. Got to watch that but you can relate to fences that were in place and are still in the same location.

This is SOP for most good surveyors. For many doing the work in my area, not so much, not in the not to distant past.

As far as repairing the damage. I canƒ??t do much about it. When I explain this process, they think Iƒ??m crazy at the county. Math is so much faster, cheaper and easier to understand. Itƒ??s in the deeds. Nice and square and 5280 x 5280. If I sound bitter, it is because I am.?ÿ More and more I just reject stuff on my surveys, explain my reasoning, show my evidence and file the survey.?ÿ Its an opinion preserved in the record.?ÿ I'm sure it is going to cause some heartburn in the coming years.

Oh yeah, once you do all this and go back to search for the corner, a lot of times you can find them.

@ridge

exactly right. Deed says 500 feet. Measure from the mathmagical point, fence nominally 500 feet away is "off" 30 feet. Measure from the old 1/16th post, which we know was set in 1894 (original Deed 1897), the fence measures almost exactly 500 feet, amazing.

Many of the surveys which resulted in metes and bounds descriptions or even "of" width descriptions were never recorded but there's a pattern of fences out there which fit themselves if not the current modern "control."

But when I tell some Surveyors you need to compare the survey history to the title history their eyes glaze over and they look at me like I'm some kinda nut. The Deed says the NE of SW so we gotta stake that, damn the fences.

My answer is the County Surveyor has no authority to move private rights unless the property owners agree to it, a written agreement is not necessarily required but some act of acquiescence is required.

The rebars are just scrap iron stabbed into the ground.

@dave-karoly

Another thing about old fences.  The distances are nuch better than the bearings.  Why,  they had a chain but not a transit.  I've found many old fenced parecels where the distances along the fences match pretty well. Bearings not so much, sometimes bad.

@ridge, who is that nut?

@ridge

I agree with your last paragraph, except I haven't seen all that much flattening in the places I work. From what I have seen, those B.S.s in surveying are greatly increasing younger surveyors technical competencies, but not doing much for their legal competencies. 

I wasn't implying that I think you are to quick to proportion. You seem like a thorough fellow. I was just cautioning against reproportining from better evidence. As for what constitutes acceptance, that is a sticky question, the kind that justifies our status as professionals...

@dave-karoly

If I understand you correctly, you are right: Do you mean that a surveyor has no right to move private boundaries, but does have the right to set monuments? Those monuments being meaningless for boundary purposes without land owner reliance? 

I would just add, that more often than not those meaningless rebar attract acquiescence. Most owners, barring a glaring inconsistency, will accept a surveyor's monument without question, many surveyors will too. 

@ridge

I mean in person, someone brings a thorny boundary problem, I say you need to compare the survey history to the title history, not their fault because we were never taught that. We were taught how to follow the instructions for the first time, how to mathematically break down the section but there is a lot less of that and a lot more of boundaries that already have existed for decades. The training hasn't caught up with the actual work out there.

And we are a profession that devalues our own work so when you tell a surveyor that the old surveys people relied on matter, they get confused. You know the surgeon doesn't say it's all just an opinion before he slices and dices your gut. The lawyer may say that but then he'll go into court and vigorously argue your point of view as if it's God's gift of the real truth.

?ÿ

@aliquot

yes that's the problem.

usually when I'm Surveying a boundary at least one of the property owners has asked me to do it so I have some nominal authority to do it. The neighbor is free to disagree with me but usually they don't.

@ridge

Leon

Good to see you're still in the game. The people of Utah could have done worse than to have you making boundary judgments. With respect to County authority I can only speak to what I know about my state. As you are well aware, many laws governing such authority is fairly common in some form between jurisdictions and based on ancient laws. In our state there is a seldom used law that I have seen used that allows the county to require a subdivision survey done by a licensed surveyor without the approval of the owners. The basic reason being their deed descriptions aren't adequate to draw a map for taxation purposes. The owners are given notice and the opportunity to let the district court decide if it's appropriate. To your question of it being controlling; the law with respect to the county survey says that "no search was made, other than the records of the auditorƒ??s office, to establish title to the property within the plat, and that the lots within the plat are subject individually to the regulations and ordinances of the applicable governing body. "?ÿ

We handle following these surveys no differently than any other and base this on 12 Am Jur 2d, Boundaries, ?? 61, p 599: In surveying a tract of land according to a former plat or survey, the surveyor's only duty is to relocate, upon the best evidence obtainable, the courses and lines at the same place where originally located by the first surveyor on the ground. In making the resurvey, he has the right to furnish proof of the location of the lost lines or monuments, not to dispute the correctness of or to control the original survey. The original survey in all cases must, whenever possible, be retraced, since it cannot be disregarded or needlessly altered after property rights have been acquired in reliance upon it. On a resurvey to establish lost boundaries, if the original corners can be found, the places where they were originally established are conclusive without regard to whether they were in fact correctly located, in this respect it has been stated that the rule is based on the premise that the stability of boundary lines is more important than minor inaccuracies or mistakes. But it has also been said that great caution must be used in reference to resurveys, since surveys made by different surveyors seldom wholly agree. A resurvey not shown to have been based upon the original survey is inconclusive in determining boundaries and will ordinarily yield to a resurvey based upon known monuments and boundaries of the original survey.

I'm not telling you anything you don't know

Take care