When contracted to survey an interior lot of a recorded subdivision map retracing the boundary of that lot, recovering and/or monumenting corners, what references do you all refer to when asked to support the methodology that you use to reestablish the property lines?
Do you reference leading surveying publications? If so, which section / principle?
Do you reference your state's minimum technical standards?
How do you support that your methodology is the normal standard of practice?
I'm curious as to how consistent the standard is across the US.
Thanks
Ric
The best available evidence of the boundary location. In other words, it depends. Each situation is unique.
Can't argue with you on that Jim. What I was looking for was the actual methods you would use to reestablish the property lines.
Example: (Assuming no monuments recovered at property corners) Would you find two centerline monuments, establish the intersection of each sideline with the centerline, turn record angle down each sideline, go record distance (half street width) to front corners, then go record sideline distance to reestablish the rear line? If so, I would like to know what published reference you would cite to support that methodology?
If you would use different methods, please describe and cite a reference.
Thanks
> Example: (Assuming no monuments recovered at property corners) Would you find two centerline monuments, establish the intersection of each sideline with the centerline, turn record angle down each sideline, go record distance (half street width) to front corners, then go record sideline distance to reestablish the rear line? If so, I would like to know what published reference you would cite to support that methodology?
>
> If you would use different methods, please describe and cite a reference.
I need more details, so I'll expand the givens for the hypothetical:
1. I find 2 centerline monuments of record that include the entire street frontage of my lot. They fit record within acceptable tolerance (i.e. they're not deemed to be set as the result of a blunder).
2. I find 2 centerline monuments of record in the street on the opposite side of the block that includes my lot. (Same fit criteria.)
3. I find no superior monumentation (front/rear lot corners) within the block.
My approach:
1. I establish the pertinent centerline geometry using the found monuments. (Brown, 2nd edition, §5.18)
2. I establish the pertinent block line segments on each street by offsetting the established centerline geometry. (Ibid., §5.18)
3. I establish the front corners on each street by single proportionate measurement using the block line segments above. (Ibid., §5.30 and §5.31)
4. I establish the rear corners by single proportionate measurement using the established front corners in consideration of record geometry. (Ibid., §5.30 and §5.31)
In reality, I've probably only done it exactly this way a few times; most of the time there's some superior monumentation available, particularly in older subdivisions. In newer subdivisions, the difference between the above and record is often negligible. But I pretty much always go around the block, though sometimes "around" means establishing control by fast-static GPS.
What the heck is a centerline monument anyway, never seen one;-)
Thats those things that California public agencies are so prolific at destroying:-D
You left retracement behind. A resurvey should be authorized by landowners on both sides of the line.
LR - just a comment from a background lurker;
have never come across any requirement, written or unwritten for both owners needed to authorize a surveyor of their common lot line.
Yes, it is helpful when both owners are in agreement that a surveyor needs to be made. I would love to always have that over the angry neighbor situation.
Obtain a copy of the relevant map
obtain current vesting deed and vesting deeds for adjoiners
Search for corner records and records of surveys
Search private record when indicated that they may exist
search in the field for called for monuments
search in the field for un called for monuments
Collect data for occupation.
Arrive at an opinion as to method based upon evidence.
The goal is to develop a preponderance of the evidence to support a selected opinion.
> Obtain a copy of the relevant map
> obtain current vesting deed and vesting deeds for adjoiners
> Search for corner records and records of surveys
> Search private record when indicated that they may exist
> search in the field for called for monuments
> search in the field for un called for monuments
> Collect data for occupation.
collect any relevant evidence of the boundary, including but not limited to physical evidence, record evidence, and parol evidence.
analyze all the evidence
> Arrive at an opinion as to method based upon evidence, and the appropriate law(s)
> The goal is to develop a preponderance of the evidence to support a selected opinion.
Huh?? No, the goal is to develop an opinion on the location of the boundary, based upon he best available evidence, applying the correct survey principles and the correct boundary location doctrines and laws.
"What are boundaries is a matter of law; but where they are is a matter of fact. ( Bolton v. Lann, 16 Tex. 96.)" -WHITE v. CLAUS SPRECKELS,, 75 Cal. 610, April 26, 1888
Huh? read carefully into what I said. Do not make the rookie mistake to read into my post something I did not say. There is a subtle difference in the method. I do not start with the notion that I am going to pro rate a lot within its block. I start with the notion that I will collected evidence and this evidence once it has reached a certain threshold will dictate method and opinion. Then it is likely I will prorate the evidence in the block as opposed to looking at a lot and block description and then assuming that the only possible resolution is proration....
you need a preponderance of the evidence, without a preponderance of evidence you will not prevail at trial.... naturally a part of the preponderance will be the best evidence
exactly Dave we need evidence as to where the boundary is and when we have a preponderance of evidence as to where the boundary is the need for math or axioms or methods or the application of law just gets in the way and provides an excuse for surveyor's to get in the way of common sense and claim the boundary is some place other than where the facts say it is. Most neighbors can point out whjere there bounfaries are.
> The goal is to develop a preponderance of the evidence to support a selected opinion.
No offense intended, I'm fairly sure that what you wrote isn't what you meant to say. What you wrote COULD be interpreted as finding only that evidence that would support a previously "selected opinion", when what you meant was the best available evidence will lead you to the proper opinion.
okay you are reading into what you think I said. I did not say form an opinion and then go find evidence to support that opinion. I never suggested ignoring any evidence.
> okay you are reading into what you think I said. I did not say form an opinion and then go find evidence to support that opinion. I never suggested ignoring any evidence.
I think you said what I thought I said that you said. I think? 😉
Seems to me you guys are meaning the same thing but saying it in ways that can easily be read to a very different end.
What I think
The way what you wrote can be interpreted (and is interpreted by strict language construction) is that you decide what your opinion is before looking at the evidence, and then from the evidence you've found, select that which supports your pre-selected opinion. But I'm quite sure that's not what you meant.
It's not a requirement in survey specs or board rules is just the basic law. Boundaries are under the domain of the landowners. These folks own the land and have property rights.
Surveyors have no authority to establish boundaries even though that's what many expect them to do. All the authority is with the landowners. So a landowner when dividing his land can hire a surveyor to do that and in many places is required to hire a surveyor to do the work like preparing a subdivision plat (creating new boundary lines).
Surveyors are allowed to retrace boundaries because that is not establishing the boundaries but just reconfirming where the boundary has been established. There is a large gray area where surveyors make their own rules and think they are retracing when all they have are the numbers in a deed. So they stake out the deed numbers either because they can't find anything to retrace (physical stuff on the ground indicating the established boundary) or worse just ignoring all the evidence of boundary establishment because it's just too much work. In essence they are laying down a line where there is no evidence it has ever been other than that is where the math on that day leads them. I see that as retracing what never existed but its a trick done thousands of times every day by many surveyors.
When there are two owners on each side of a non established line then the surveyor can't be acting under the authority of just one of them, but needs both owners authority if the goal is the establish the boundary at the time. Otherwise the line surveyed would need to be acted upon by the landowners over time (accepted by agreement) whereby the boundary is established by law, not by the surveyor but by the landowners actions.
Where I work there are lots of surveys done where the line is not established, both the landowners are not involved (usually one owner doesn't even know unless he finds the stakes in his field). Many of these surveys do serve a purpose of greasing the wheels of government whereby some land permit is issued, but after that usually the owners just keep the boundaries where they have always been and ignore the new pins in the ground. So from my viewpoint things are getting worse instead of better.
I suppose I'd just like to see more realization that sometimes the line is not retraceable and admission by surveyors that they can't retrace what doesn't exist. Then we'd end up with more boundaries established by the landowners with the help of the surveyor. The alternative is just more chaos, more two surveyors can't ever agree and more uselessness for surveyors from the landowners perspective.
