I've got a job now retracing a parcel created by a 2 lot parcel map from the early 1980's. I've found a number of the original monuments around the exterior of the subdivision that fit within hundredths. I've also come across unrecorded monuments set in 2002 that are about half foot from where the original subdivision map would put them. I contacted the 2002 surveyor and he has shared a copy of his map. He has not found any original monuments instead bringing things in from an adjoining subdivision. These are larger couple acre parcels but are also right on the ocean bluff and probably worth 5+ million. The two neighbors are both litigious, have a tenuous relationship between each other and are loaded with money (these are probably third or or fourth homes for them) While I would love to hold the monuments currently in the ground from the 2002 survey, recorded or not, I'm afraid this could easily be a disputable survey. No improvements have been built to the 2002 monumentation. I've talked to the 2002 surveyor who was very appreciative for the call and just told me to do whatever I had to.
Any thoughts?
is the property you're working on junior or senior to the property surveyed by the 2002 guy?
Seniority is not a factor. The lines in question are those created by the early 80's map which divided the two parcels.
Sorry, misinterpreted your original description of the situation. So they were both created via simultaneous conveyance from the same map/plat? Have you pushed out further to find the monuments the 2002 guy used to bring his corners in to see if you agree with his resolution? Him holding those would imply that, right or wrong, he thought there is a seniority issue somewhere in the mix since he chose to go out first then move in to the parcels in question.
This kind of stuff makes me hate doing residential work...
Not sure what state you're in, but here in Washington the rule of thumb is to accept retracement monuments within 0.5' of record positon. Of course there are always exceptions depending on the size of the parcel etc.
I would most likely indicate how far from calculated position they were, but accept them.
If I've read your post correctly, you found monuments that were NOT found in 2002. And that is a tough thing. In a perfect unrecorded world each chronologically placed survey should reinforce the other and the current survey would represent a collection of everything to date. Additional and previously undiscovered evidence has the uphill battle to even establish its provenance, especially if it affects the geometry of a previous survey.
This happened to me once-upon-a-time. I was the intermediate surveyor that did not find everything I should have. And although the differences were actually small compared to the big picture, I had to admit I had not uncovered evidence that existed at the time I performed my survey.
I remember the newer surveyor (whom I did not know at the time) was kind in his report; stating my corners were correct with the evidence I had found. He had a chance to blast my butt, but he didn't. Being a professional doesn't guarantee one is a gentleman. Being both is honorable.
Why isn't the 2002 survey recorded?
This is ca, the 2002 should have been recorded but never did for whatever reason. That's correct Paden, our survey has recovered basically all of the original monuments on the exterior of the subdivision tagged by the original surveyor. The 2002 survey has none of these, instead it uses points in an adjoining subdivision where lot lines are stubbing into our exterior boundary. These are strangely configured parcels where one is wrapping around the other creating a number of interior line segments. None of these interior original corners are in place either not set or wiped out.
roger_LS, post: 372853, member: 11550 wrote: This is ca, the 2002 should have been recorded but never did for whatever reason.....
Oklahoma is not a recording state. Stuff like you've described is an everyday occurrence around here. It's too bad you have the benefit of recordation, but no one did it at the time. Good luck.
roger_LS, post: 372853, member: 11550 wrote: None of these interior original corners are in place either not set or wiped out.
If the 1980 survey did not set the monuments, his plat could be considered a plan to subdivide and the 2002 survey could be considered the originating, on the ground, work that has established the boundary.
If the 1980 survey set monuments and they have become obliterated, then both you and 2002 surveyor are retracing surveyors...that have a very slight difference of opinion. If neither land owner has disputed the location of the 2002 monuments, 14 years of acquiescence may come into play.
Just thinking out loud...
DDSM:beer::beer::beer:
paden cash, post: 372855, member: 20 wrote: Oklahoma is not a recording state. Stuff like you've described is an everyday occurrence around here. It's too bad you have the benefit of recordation, but no one did it at the time. Good luck.
To paraphrase Orioles manager Earl Weaver:
"This isn't a recording state. We do this every day."
roger_LS, post: 372831, member: 11550 wrote: I've found a number of the original monuments around the exterior of the subdivision that fit within hundredths.
I would hold the original and go from there noting the 2002 monuments. It has been my experience courts will hold "Original" monuments regardless of their position in relation to the plat.
roger_LS, post: 372831, member: 11550 wrote: I've got a job now retracing a parcel created by a 2 lot parcel map from the early 1980's. I've found a number of the original monuments around the exterior of the subdivision that fit within hundredths. I've also come across unrecorded monuments set in 2002 that are about half foot from where the original subdivision map would put them. I contacted the 2002 surveyor and he has shared a copy of his map. He has not found any original monuments instead bringing things in from an adjoining subdivision. These are larger couple acre parcels but are also right on the ocean bluff and probably worth 5+ million. The two neighbors are both litigious, have a tenuous relationship between each other and are loaded with money (these are probably third or or fourth homes for them) While I would love to hold the monuments currently in the ground from the 2002 survey, recorded or not, I'm afraid this could easily be a disputable survey. No improvements have been built to the 2002 monumentation. I've talked to the 2002 surveyor who was very appreciative for the call and just told me to do whatever I had to.
Any thoughts?
As in most situations, we don't have all the relevant evidence yet.
However, it sounds like the 2002 surveyor has created the ambiguity you are now facing. Call him back and get him and the landowners involved in resolving the issues.
I'd ask the 2002 surveyor if he is hesitant to get involved, would he be more comfortable getting involved now, or after the matter goes to litigation?
roger_LS, post: 372853, member: 11550 wrote: This is ca, the 2002 should have been recorded but never did for whatever reason. That's correct Paden, our survey has recovered basically all of the original monuments on the exterior of the subdivision tagged by the original surveyor. The 2002 survey has none of these, instead it uses points in an adjoining subdivision where lot lines are stubbing into our exterior boundary. These are strangely configured parcels where one is wrapping around the other creating a number of interior line segments. None of these interior original corners are in place either not set or wiped out.
To use a PLSS term, it sounds like the 2002 surveyor "went into the next township" for his "controlling corners". He's lucky it only amounted to a half foot variation with your correct positions. Since his procedure is clearly the wrong thing to do, and since he didn't file a map, he could easily be persuaded to re-do his survey, using the correct controlling mons, and filing a map, all on his ticket. With both of you telling the property owners that the new survey is the correct one, it should be an easy sell to them. The 2002 surveyor should be more worried about The Board than a suit by the landowners.
BajaOR, post: 372908, member: 9139 wrote: To use a PLSS term, it sounds like the 2002 surveyor "went into the next township" for his "controlling corners". He's lucky it only amounted to a half foot variation with your correct positions. Since his procedure is clearly the wrong thing to do, and since he didn't file a map, he could easily be persuaded to re-do his survey, using the correct controlling mons, and filing a map, all on his ticket. With both of you telling the property owners that the new survey is the correct one, it should be an easy sell to them. The 2002 surveyor should be more worried about The Board than a suit by the landowners.
Yes, that's a reasonable analogy. Using points from the adjoining subdivision has created both a positional and rotational difference which turns into the 1/2' foot, and it's a geometrically weak survey where a short bearing base is being pushed out a long distance.
Being that I practice in California, my take on this situation is that if the 2002 surveyor still has an active license, you have an obligation to report him to the Board. Not only did he violate the LS Act by not filing either a CR (acceptable in this situation) or an R/S. Even more troubling is the fact the 2002 surveyor did not perform his due diligence in retracing the original survey and did not recover any of the numerous original monuments, which you proved are still in existence. If he still has an active license and you don't report him, then any more damage he does to the public is blood on your hands in my opinion.
Was the original Subdivision Map ever recorded?
clearcut, post: 372941, member: 297 wrote: Being that I practice in California, my take on this situation is that if the 2002 surveyor still has an active license, you have an obligation to report him to the Board. Not only did he violate the LS Act by not filing either a CR (acceptable in this situation) or an R/S. Even more troubling is the fact the 2002 surveyor did not perform his due diligence in retracing the original survey and did not recover any of the numerous original monuments, which you proved are still in existence. If he still has an active license and you don't report him, then any more damage he does to the public is blood on your hands in my opinion.
I know nothing about the 2002 LS, and roger _LS should use his judgment of course, but my advice is to first try to keep the Board out of it. Everyone has cases where conditions or life situations makes it difficult to adhere to the rules. I know damn good land surveyors who have found themselves on the wrong side of the rules, and needed a little nudge from a fellow professional to clean up an old project.
I agree it's our obligation to police the profession, but we can choose how to do that. One alternative is to deal with it through the local CLSA Chapter's Professional Practices Committee.
makerofmaps, post: 372970, member: 9079 wrote: Was the original Subdivision Map ever recorded?
Yes, the original subdivision map was recorded which shows all interior lines monumented with pipe. Both properties hold title by reference to this recorded map.
BajaOR, post: 372976, member: 9139 wrote: I know nothing about the 2002 LS, and roger _LS should use his judgment of course, but my advice is to first try to keep the Board out of it. Everyone has cases where conditions or life situations makes it difficult to adhere to the rules. I know damn good land surveyors who have found themselves on the wrong side of the rules, and needed a little nudge from a fellow professional to clean up an old project.
I agree it's our obligation to police the profession, but we can choose how to do that. One alternative is to deal with it through the local CLSA Chapter's Professional Practices Committee.
I agree and have no intention of taking this to the board at any point. I've notified the 2002 surveyor and the county surveyor will see this when my map is submitted, he can do with it what he chooses.