Tom Adams, post: 380748, member: 7285 wrote: I agree, generally with your comments. Even legibility might be up to interpretation. I would send a lot of medicines and instructions back if they had to be legible. And if you can read it with a magnifying glass....is it legible? A reviewer should check a plat to see if it has all the elements required by law to be on that (type of) plat. It would be good for the statutes or rules to call to a minimum font size, then it would be within the checkers purview (if that's the right word).
But generally speaking, if the statutes require a north-arrow, then check of whether the plat has a north-arrow (etc). Not the linetypes, or the boundary decisions, or other non-regulated plat issues.
Thats what we have here and it works quite well.
"aliquot, post: 381242, memb
recording
[QUOTE=aliquot, post: 381242, member: 2486 wrote: It may have worked for 400 years, but that is no excuse not to try to improve things.
Once again... Mr. Aliquot being anonymous and placeless here, maybe it works for you particularly if you are in a later Public Land Survey State or a state that sectionalized land an aliquot tracts are the standard.
Enacting mandatory recording would cause many more problems than it would solve.
Yes there is a need for some specific improvements here. I tried for a number of years as a board member of the state surveyors association and district chairman to move some items but lost the fight.
But, I didn't and don't see a mandatory plat recordation as an improvement.
Let me reiterate from my previous post.. In this area, the PLSS did not take hold with subsequent surveyors. Yes the GLO original surveys came and went numerous times establishing townships and sections but the system was gradually abandoned for metes and bounds surveys commencing from a corner. GLO even adopted some of the French and Spanish colonial system of surveys. They created GLO arpent tracts along water bodies. Resurveyed many of the head rights into sections that come in all shapes and sizes and not exclusively rectangular. One must have a historical knowledge of where they survey. New Orleans for many decades in the early 19th century was one of the wealthiest areas of the U.S. and in the top 5 most populous cites. Where I am was not included in the Louisiana Purchase. It was part of Spanish West Florida (Andrew Ellicott surveyed the parallel boundary) that became briefly the Republic of West Florida.
Now in other area of this state (like the northern part) PLSS was perpetuated BUT not in my area in the SE of the state. There is only one National Forest in Louisiana and it is in the north above Alexandria.
Plus our laws are based in Civil Law not English common law. Some of you may refer to it as the Napoleonic Code. The strength of civil law is the meticulous recording of documents by notaries. This has continued to present time under civil law system.
If I surveyed in other PLSS states especially those where the government controls vast amounts, I would like to see a sensible plat recordation process.
dmyhill, post: 381243, member: 1137 wrote: And if it worked so well, why did those under that system devise an entirely different system for the westward expansion?
I disagree with your premise.
The rectangular system was not chosen as the best system to survey land but as the best and most expedient system to dispense and sell land. Land was awarded or sold to various citizens on new frontiers (Ohio)so platting needed to be quick and simple and of an egalitarian quantified method.
Also there were prototype sectionalized land in the New England colonies before Jefferson et al implementation.
Also remember that Jefferson was only seeking to purchase a Gulf of Mexico
Port . Because of very complex global politics with France, Spain and GB at the time and strategic negotiations by Jefferson and his emissaries (Livingston and Monroe) , the 1803 Louisiana Purchase became to be. So once again, the PLSS rectangular was used to survey and dispense land.
The system was based upon the economics not upon a better system.
aliquot, post: 381240, member: 2486 wrote: Again, if you feel like you need to charge for your time to reproduce the plat, I can understand that.
My issue is that if other interested parties don't have access to your opinion the value of your opinion is greatly reduced. Monuments in the ground without any record are not as valuable when you don't have a record of how and why they were established.
This secracy that boundaries are shrouded in in some states is very detrimental to our status as professional. I suspect, though I haven't done the research that average salaries for surveyors adjusted for cost of living are higher in recording states than none recording states.
What is your state?
Robert Hill, post: 381300, member: 378 wrote: What is your state?
State Law (and BLM rules) are what they are. That ship has sailed. State law & BLM pretty much agree that found original monuments govern. So how do you know a monument is a "found original monument" if it is not described on a document of public record? Unrecorded plats carry some weight but are considered private information as the public has no way or responsibility to know about them. Obviously, recorded plats are a matter of public record & Surveyors, attorneys & everybody else is responsible for knowing about them. Here, the recent trend is for the legal description to call for the adjoiners (neighbors) & reference a plat. Not a bad idea as a lot of legal descriptions get screwed up by attorneys. I recently tried to retrace a deed description on a timer tract. Something was obviously wrong. Surveyors don't set corners at 6' & 3' intervals going through a swamp, particularly back in the 1800's. Come to find out, the attorney copied old deed descriptions & apparently didn't understand that the unit of measurement was the chain & not feet! The value of recording plats is obvious & apparent. Improving the way we do things is always good. I don't see many surveyors pulling chains these days. The old principles are still valid & are still the law, however.
Robert Hill, post: 381297, member: 378 wrote: maybe it works for you particularly if you are in a later Public Land Survey State or a state that sectionalized land an aliquot tracts are the standard.
I don't see that being PLSS or not has anything to do with the merits and problems of mandatory recording. Although PLSS states started with an almost rectangular framework and aliquot parcels, they like any other state also have platted subdivisions, plus multitudinous small parcels and occasional large irregular parcels created with metes & bounds descriptions.
Bill93, post: 381334, member: 87 wrote: I don't see that being PLSS or not has anything to do with the merits and problems of mandatory recording. Although PLSS states started with an almost rectangular framework and aliquot parcels, they like any other state also have platted subdivisions, plus multitudinous small parcels and occasional large irregular parcels created with metes & bounds descriptions.
It would be almost impossible to file a section corner repeat here based on the PLSS.
As far as mandatory recording, fees and the review process would not work here.
All major subdivisions and parcel
resudivisions are approved via planning and recorded here.
Boundary surveys are attached or referenced in conveyance records for act of sales.But nothing is mandatory, there is no review process unless it is a major subdivision which will take many months and money (One needs to hire an attorney who specializes) plus the surveyor and engineers.
Robert Hill, post: 381342, member: 378 wrote: It would be almost impossible to file a section corner repeat here based on the PLSS.
Can you explain what you mean by Section Corner Repeat?
RADAR, post: 381393, member: 413 wrote: Can you explain what you mean by Section Corner Repeat?
Autocorrect on the phone
It messes with me all the time
Please forgive typos and autocorrects
Robert Hill, post: 381300, member: 378 wrote: What is your state?
Tennessee, Arizona, Alaska and New Mexico.
I am not sure why this conversation has turned into a PLSS discussion. The benefits of recording are the same in PLSS states and non-PLSS states. There are no states that I am aware of that do not use metes and bounds in descriptions and no PLSS state in which the rectangular system is not invaded by numerous non-rectangular entities.
What are the problems that requiring recording would create?
Not every recording state is like California. I agree that checking fees their are out of hand, but it doesn't have to be like that. Other recording states require no check and only a nominal recording fee. I think the last fee I payed was $20.
That $20 was a great deal to ensure anyone who needs to know where any of those boundaries does not have to redo my work. Long after I am gone my opinion will live on. Unless I made a major error I have brought permanent peace of mind to any who have an interest in that boundary. Monuments may be destroyed, but they will be able to be replaced without a complete resurvey of the awful metes and bounds descriptions within that section.
The only benefit I can see to not recording that survey would be that if any one else in the neighborhood needed a survey, or if the future owners needed the survey again, I could offer them a much better deal then anyone else, but there has always been enough work for me, and if I had wanted to get rich I would have become an attorney.
Robert Hill, post: 381396, member: 378 wrote: Autocorrect on the phone
It messes with me all the time
Please forgive typos and autocorrects
I didn't know what you meant either. Seeing your response, I infer that you meant "Report".
"What are the problems that requiring recording would create?"
It creates the means for municipalities to dictate the elements displayed on a plat. This turns us into the lap dog of planners who quickly discover that their jobs are made easier when surveyors locate details such as "all structures within 200' of the subject parcel" as is required in one town within a recording state that I worked in.
Here, as long as you are conforming to the statuatory minimum standards, it would be very rare for anyone other than the client to expect you to do more, so long as your submittal is legible. There have been a reviewer or two who attempted to add their own favorites but that was quashed for the most part. Several counties chose to opt out of the review requirement when a stubborn reviewer caused too many headaches.
Filing the surveys is no big deal. Having a wealth of information available so that you can do your job correctly is priceless.
Murphy, post: 381475, member: 9787 wrote: "What are the problems that requiring recording would create?"
It creates the means for municipalities to dictate the elements displayed on a plat. This turns us into the lap dog of planners who quickly discover that their jobs are made easier when surveyors locate details such as "all structures within 200' of the subject parcel" as is required in one town within a recording state that I worked in.
It doesn't have to be like that. A mandatory review does not need to accompany a requirement to record. In Alaska there is no review, except for the very minimumal check by the recorder to ensure the Plat has the required note srating that it is not a subdivision and that the MTRS is listed.
I'm gratified that my question has generated such a lively discussion. In the case I was pondering, the originator of the survey preferred his survey not be released, so I did not do so.
I wonder how many of the differing opinions are influenced by one's perspective in terms of who you work for - a surveyor in an one-man private practice has a much different view of the records in his vault than one who lays out highways for his respective Department of Transportation or a College Professor.
I'm pretty much in agreement that the monuments I leave in the ground are public notice of my work, clearly marked when I leave - for anyone to accept or dispute.
As far as mandatory recording, Michigan requires such for a division of land for sale . . . and few of the surveyors in my area record anything else, though I routinely advise my clients that they may record their survey and how to do it and what benefit there may be. However, just one example of someone NOT wishing their survey to be recorded is in the case of Estate planning. The owner splits the property (assume legally) but does not wish his heirs to be aware of the details. The documents are prepared and held by his attorney until such time as needed.
How about the case of returning to a job and finding and marking the irons? Does anyone think a drawing should be made and recorded? I think not.
Robert Hill, post: 381299, member: 378 wrote: I disagree with your premise.
The rectangular system was not chosen as the best system to survey land but as the best and most expedient system to dispense and sell land....
The system was based upon the economics not upon a better system.
This is about ownership and stable boundaries, which is exactly the same as the "the best and most expedient system to dispense and sell the land".
And, I think that you might be glossing over some of the history here. It has been a while, but when I was studying for the exam, I read some history about the PLSS, and it was devised as a better system, noting the issues that occurred in the original 13 states. You can see evidence that it was to be an improvement in the big changes in the system made in the early going, and the small changes even to this day. The genius of the system being that a walking of the bounds was no longer needed to convey property, you could buy and sell and buy and sell a parcel from thousands of miles away, and when you got there, it was right where you were told it was at. (Insert discussions about fraudulent surveys here, but hey, that wasn't invented by the PLSS.)
As a group BLM surveyors understand protecting bona fide rights of land owners. This concept is cooked into the system. (Yes, there is much controversy about whether this happens in practice...that is a P&R discussion.)
The PLSS was the plan for the subdivision of the Federal lands. It was conceived as a more orderly system of dividing the vast land area in the West, which it was. It was based on geodetic principles & took convergence of the meridians into account. It is superior to a simple "metes & bounds" system in this respect. When the jurisdiction was transferred to the various States, State laws governed further transactions. The PLSS did not change the basic legal principles on which boundary law in this country is based, which in turn is based on English common law. It in essence is a giant subdivision plat & the BLM manuals & rules are based on established legal principles, geodesy & sound judgement. There was no GPS in those days but the principles of geodesy have been known long before the days of Aristotle.
Duane Frymire, post: 380537, member: 110 wrote: Well, we disagree then. In my opinion, the only reason affirmative use of some kind is recognized at all is because it acts in corroboration or defiance of survey monumentation. In the first instance it may later be used as accessory evidence to find the original location of the monuments, in the second instance it may be used to make a claim of adverse possession or an agreed line, or may lead to a survey asking for a second opinion. When a deed is delivered the legal presumption is it has been accepted, same with the survey. If unchallenged for a long period of time it becomes conclusive.
What about the case where the adjoiner is not aware a Survey occurred?
Dave Karoly, post: 382365, member: 94 wrote: What about the case where the adjoiner is not aware a Survey occurred?
That would fall under the second instance fact pattern somewhere. Handled different in different jurisdictions. But generally speaking, ignorance of the law does not excuse one from being bound by it. All parcels are presumed to have been surveyed and marked at changes in jurisdictions and ownership conditions, if you own property you are presumed to know this. If I fail to see a speed limit sign I'm still bound to obey the posted limit, If you drive you presumed to know these limits are posted at changes of jurisdictions and roadway conditions, should have looked closer.
Dave Karoly, post: 382365, member: 94 wrote: What about the case where the adjoiner is not aware a Survey occurred?
Public notification by recording the survey.
Some do not know because they have not followed the process to find the info or they have not routinely visited their property to see the evidence.