In California we have a Record of Survey requirement that gets triggered by a fair number of surveys. I assume that many other states have similar laws and/or professional requirements. Does anyone know the rational/justification for this sort of requirement?
> ... Does anyone know the rational/justification for this sort of requirement?
One merely needs to attempt a boundary survey in a non-recording state to have a full appreciation for the value of recording.
Fully agree.
I only operate in Tasmania which as you call it is a "recording state". Every time a corner gets physically marked on the ground, survey notes have to be prepared and submitted to the Land Titles Office.
Why any sane rational person that cares about the quality of the cadastre would object to such a system is beyond me. Sure it costs the client a bit extra to prepare the notes but that is more than offset by the time saved in being able to access all the information submitted by other surveyors.
It's similar to the bearings debate. All surveys here have to be on grid bearing datum and coordinated. This has been the case since 2005. Initially it added a little expense to jobs but now the extra time having to coordinate is more than outweighed by the time savings generated by having coordinated surveys marks in the area.
Outstanding. I could kiss you. And now I want to move to Tasmania. The U.S. has about the worst cadastre in the developed world. Many people here survey in local plane systems, and reject standardized coordinate systems because???? No reason.
If you pick the right jurisdictions in the U.S. you can
-Skip college
-Make up your own jackleg coordinate systems
-Put no identifying caps on your "monuments" (Or maybe not set them at all! Just a lot split!)
-And best: Make no official record of your surveys!!
-Then whine about how GIS analysts don't "get it"
-Lastly, wonder why your "profession" doesn't get any respect.
In Colorado, since 1987, when a monument is set, the surveyor must prepare a plat and file it in the county surveyor's office (short version).
The main justification is that without this requirement, surveyors had a very difficult time researching monuments and understanding how they were set, and by whom (calling surveyors, when they WERE called, did not have reliable results at best). Or, clients could "choose" to pay less for surveyors to prepare plats without monuments being set, which invariably caused great confusion for future surveyors who had neither map or pin.
Prior to this law, it was lucrative for some surveyors to provide two-bit work and still be technically legal - so they got most of the work.
As one who has lived and worked in the same county for 40 years, I have seen the results of the implementation of our "plat deposit law" first hand:
The profession has been elevated and the public is far better served than before. The phenomenon of multiple monuments has been observably reduced (but not eliminated, of course). Surveyors can research an area and see what surveyors did in the past. Clients can find surveys of their property online on my website.
Very importantly, those few surveyors who defy these laws for monumentation and plat standards are now isolated and can be exposed and disciplined because they are violating specific statutes. Clients who are shopping can no longer legally request that a surveyor lower his standards down to two bits: All surveyors now - generally - follow at LEAST the minimum standards so those who do the best work and charge accordingly get plenty of work - those who charge two bits are weeded out of the system.
The beauty of our laws is that the indexed surveys do not affect title by law - so they can be easily amended if necessary.
For examples of my particular index of 2000 or so plats - go to www.co.grand.co.us, click on "county surveyor" and follow the links!
I highly recommend that every state enact a similar requirement to file boundary survey plats!
ww CO PLS
Seb - You could have added that strength of the Australian system lies in the Torrens Title where the state guarantees all land titles, maintains the register and processes all transfers along with recording all surveys.
Barry Graham
Melbourne, Australia
Pennsylvania has no such recording laws and no monumentation laws. They do have "recommended" standards, but they are not mandatory, and, from what I can tell, often ignored.
So, most surveys are not recorded, and many properties have nothing more than wooden hubs at the corners.
Boundary is not something I do much of, I avoid it if at all possible. I get calls all the time for lot surveys, but always refer them to another local surveyor who does a lot of them (no pun intended).
I am not sure why this is the situation here, I get the feeling it is a "make work" program for surveyors. [sarcasm]Why rely on an old survey when you can do a new one[/sarcasm]
Well said Warren :good:
Postcard from a non-recording State
Sadly Oklahoma may not ever reach a point where filing any surveys is mandatory. The only hope is the densely populated counties may implement some sort of requirement.
Abstracting in Oklahoma is a lucrative legal "crime" and documented title is sometimes wishful thinking. A huge amount of good surveying has been performed over the years to bound and define what was sold as "10 acres next to daddy's barn". Trouble is the recorded conveyances still cling to inadequate description. No public record exists of any survey work. Unless the property owner has maintained the physical bounds and documentation all is lost.
Abstractors leave lots of fodder out of their collection...with all the zeal and scrutiny that you would expect from a part-time high school kid getting minimum wage.
I just don't see survey recording happening in Oklahoma before I take the dirt-nap. Sad, but true. It would be nice to at least be in the twentieth century around here...now that it's well into the twenty-first.
> rational/justification
To create a traceable record of footsteps of those who came before us that have already lay'd the foundation based in law, fact and good intentions to which we are required to build upon rather than recreate as to not throw the neighborhood into constant calamity and consternation by the proverbial 0.04.;-)
> In California we have a Record of Survey requirement that gets triggered by a fair number of surveys. I assume that many other states have similar laws and/or professional requirements. Does anyone know the rational/justification for this sort of requirement?
I can't imagine practicing in a jurisdiction wothout such a requirement. Some downsides are some Counties have decided the filing of ROSs should be a cash cow and charge exorbitant fees for "review" of the ROS and a high per sheet "filing" charge, and some "reviewers" greatly exceed the bounds of what they are legally entitled to review, causing delays and problems. A nice feature is in California you can tell the County Surveyor to shove his review comments where the sun don't shine and force filing, although he does have the right to add a disagreemnt comment to the ROS if he wishes.
I've always wondered why California County Surveyors were given review authority of private surveyors work. It makes no sense to me whatsoever...
> I've always wondered why California County Surveyors were given review authority of private surveyors work. It makes no sense to me whatsoever...
somebody needs to review them (for specific minimum standards: see those standards for clarification)... look at the quality of maps filed with no review: many are pure crap
> > rational/justification
>
> To create a traceable record of footsteps of those who came before us that have already lay'd the foundation based in law, fact and good intentions to which we are required to build upon rather than recreate as to not throw the neighborhood into constant calamity and consternation by the proverbial 0.04.;-)
:good:
Postcard from a non-recording State
> Sadly Oklahoma may not ever reach a point where filing any surveys is mandatory. The only hope is the densely populated counties may implement some sort of requirement.
.....
I can understand how in less populated counties/states that the maintenance of a Record of Survey system could be difficult. But with todays free online storage capacities and with Google free group system a rudimentary searchable (use APN's as the basis) surveys system of any survey could be done and made public for probably little or no cost. Storing the maps as a .pdf is easy and has a small enough file sizes that thousands of files could be stored for just a few gigs of data. Making it secure would be the only issue I can think of so that if doesn't get hacked. But at least the info would be out there. Everyone could contribute/use it. No cost. Just a thought.
> somebody needs to review them (for specific minimum standards: see those standards for clarification)... look at the quality of maps filed with no review: many are pure crap
No argument with a review. But some County Surveyors take their reviews a little too seriously.
In Colorado, the first version of the plat filing law included a requirement for the county surveyors to "check" each plat for minimum statute requirements - which is generally very basic and is not supposed to be contentious.
This was repealed only one fast year later, because it didnt work (some overchecked).
I look at them, then file. If I see a blatant omission, I write a letter to the surveyor. I do NOT want to discourage surveyors from sending in plats.
ww co pls
> > I've always wondered why California County Surveyors were given review authority of private surveyors work. It makes no sense to me whatsoever...
>
> somebody needs to review them (for specific minimum standards: see those standards for clarification)... look at the quality of maps filed with no review: many are pure crap
While that may be true, who is to say that the County Surveyor is any more qualified than you to determine the quality of the map? I don't believe they go through any higher level of qualifying testing to become a C.S. If the County Surveyor were telling me to change anything the disagreed with my professional judgement, I would argue that maybe they should stamp the plat. I have been aware of some really poor County Surveyors in the past, and they are often hard to get to leave their office. The voting public doesn't have a clue who is a good surveyor or not for the most part.
Beyond looking for some basic checkpoints, and notifying the surveyor if they think they see something that might be a glaring error, I think they should be more record-keepers in regards to filing of plats. It sounds like many California County Surveyors go way overboard and way beyond their (possibly) expertise.
I'm not licensed in CA, but I know they have some tough rules to abide by. (I didn't pass the exam a few years back and gave up when the economy tanked). Agree with those that think the review process there is crazy. Even here we have unlicensed workers (ex-party chiefs) sitting behind a desk scrutinizing line weights and size of circles to show monuments set or found. Lest we forget the Planning Departments de'jour....yikes.
Personally, I have absolutely no idea why any professional surveyor would not want to record their surveys. We want other surveyors to know what in the heck we did and to rely on our footsteps, long after we pushed our last daisy. The 3 states I am licensed in do require recordation and 1 1/2 of them require a 4 yr degree in a related field, which I am fully 110% in favor of. (NV changed the sunset rules, but MI has had it in place since circa 1976, AZ is still in a vulcan mind meld somewhere)
As good of a topic as this thread is, I still do not understand the mindset of those who fight it. Raise your fees now.
Jim in AZ, actually this is a misinterpretation that many land surveyors (and County Surveyors) in California don't realize.
The County Surveyor has the authority to review the Record of Survey verifying compliance with specific sections of the law. The County Surveyor does not have the authority to review the actual survey.
The survey is already completed. The review is limited to how the land surveyor documented his/her survey in compliance with law.