I am working on a history project. It includes surveys that go back to the 1700s. Because it is an extremely rural place a lot of evidence remains.
Of course there are more recent surveys in the vicinity as well. So while looking over these more recent surveys I notice a phenomenon that occurs almost everywhere a modern surveyor has attempted to interfere with a known boundary.
That is, monuments found whether they be pipes or stones are always wrong. The surveyors will proudly show off their skills at calculating the "true" position and publish that on the map they draw.
However, stone walls always seem to have no error. They are shown on these maps along with the pipes and stones, but are never shown as being wrong.
What magic do these stone walls possess that allows them to retain their coordinated positions over the years?
I know the answer. Just thought it would be amusing to post here.
Historic boundaries and conservation efforts.
Measurements posses no inherent identity whereas a stone wall's identity is irrefutable, like running into a brick wall you could say.
Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.
Stone Walls as monuments aren't a thing here on the left coast, but I'll say this - it is easy to disturb a pipe, rod, or stone monument, maliciously or otherwise, and leave it looking to be in perfect and original condition. Any such monument without clearly apparent contemporary acts of occupation that doesn't answer its reported relative dimensions is very questionable. Moving a stone wall would be far more difficult to do.
I don't work in a metes and bounds state, but I'm assuming it's easier to defend rejecting a pipe in court than it is rejecting a wall.
Every state is a metes and bounds state. A lot of them also have PLSS descriptions for their larger parcels.
Even easier than rejecting a pipe is to realize the old measurement wasn't perfect.
Arrogant assholes. The profession is loaded with them. Like a well-watered dog, they feel they have to leave their mark everywhere. which is superior to all other marks.
Stone walls aren’t magical, but they have something that modern calculations don’t: they show where people actually agreed the boundaries were, long before today’s tools came along. Back in the 1700s and 1800s, folks often marked their property lines with physical things like walls, fences, or even a line of trees. These markers weren’t just practical; they were understood by everyone as the real boundary.
Modern surveyors, on the other hand, rely on precise measurements and math to figure out where boundaries “should” be. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it can create issues when those calculations don’t match what’s been on the ground for hundreds of years. Pipes or stones placed more recently as markers can be off because they were based on old maps or measurements that weren’t perfect. So, surveyors might adjust them, thinking they’re fixing an error.
But stone walls? They’re different. They’ve been there so long that they’ve become part of the land itself. They were built with care and intention, often by the original property owners, so they’re seen as reliable evidence of where the boundary was meant to be. Moving or questioning a wall would mean ignoring that history—and nobody wants to be the person who tries to rewrite centuries of agreement.
The truth is, stone walls stand the test of time not because they’re magically accurate, but because they represent what people agreed on. Modern tools are great for precision, but boundaries are about more than math—they’re about history, human intent, and what’s physically there
Modern surveyors, on the other hand, rely on precise measurements and math to figure out where boundaries “should” be. That’s not necessarily a bad thing,
Actually that is a VERY BAD THING. Our job is to recover boundaries as established. The very last tool we should use is a calculator. Found monuments should be honored if they cannot be impeached by eminence besides measurements. Missing monuments must be reset where they were originally placed. This is never precisely where they were supposed to go, and often quite different.
Thank you to everyone who responded here. Perhaps surveyors should be required to explain their reasoning for rejecting monuments that have existed for more than one hundred years.
On this project I can only surmise that the surveyor of land adjacent to a county highway layout from 1911 held the courses and distances given in place of the monuments found and that are shown on the layout.
Recent observations on the layout monuments do not give any indication that they had been disturbed. Also, a person would be unlikely to gain much of a benefit by moving a monument less than one foot from its original position.
Historic boundaries and conservation efforts.
Colorado, for one, does require by Rule what you suggest:
- Documenting New and Existing Monuments. If a monument is set, as a result of a land survey, that represents the same corner or control corner of an existing monument, the professional land surveyor setting the new monument shall, on the resulting land survey plat, make note of the reason the professional land surveyor did not accept the existing monument
Because there's no better evidence of a boundary than the actual lines run on the ground and agreed upon by the abutters. Who cares what marks the end when you have a stone wall or stream or blaze and paint that marks the actual line.
Regarding why surveyors ignore old evidence, I believe it relates more to pricing. Generally speaking, (warning this means I'm talking about many, but not all surveyors) surveyors do not value their knowledge to the same degree as do other professions. My guess is that many of us came from blue collar backgrounds not white collar. Many, maybe most, boundary surveyors bill based on field and CAD hours with a sprinkling of PLS added to the top. Few calculate risk and perhaps fewer recognize the value of their hard won experience and add it to the PLS rate. While engineers and architects bid based on qualifications, surveyors generate a price and begin reducing it to a point where they think they'll get the job. Beginning each boundary project with a barebones budget is the perfect first step towards convincing oneself that deed math equals the best evidence of intent and therefore slapping deed math on the ground is justifiable.
I've seen some dual licensees slap math on the ground due to arrogance, but many of the worst offenders in my area are decent men and women who feel bad about charging, "too much". If any of the latter are reading this, your knowledge is valuable, please charge more for it so you can at least pay your crews the type of wage that will keep them wanting learn and improve and become a PLS.
Pipes or stones placed more recently as markers can be off
I'm not sure that I agree with this. I don't see any reason that a property monument necessarily should be treated any differently than the way you described stone walls. I see the stone walls having the same provenance as the other monuments marking the property boundary and all should be evaluated using the same lens.
Because there's no better evidence of a boundary than the actual lines run on the ground and agreed upon by the abutters. Who cares what marks the end when you have a stone wall or stream or blaze and paint that marks the actual line.
Regarding why surveyors ignore old evidence, I believe it relates more to pricing. Generally speaking, (warning this means I'm talking about many, but not all surveyors) surveyors do not value their knowledge to the same degree as other professionals. My guess is that many of us came from blue, not white, collar backgrounds. Many, maybe most, boundary surveyors bill based on field and CAD hours with a sprinkling of PLS added to the top. Few calculate risk and perhaps fewer recognize the value of their hard won experience and add it to their PLS rate. While engineers and architects bid based on qualifications, surveyors generate a price and begin reducing it to a point where they think they'll get the job. Beginning each boundary project with a barebones budget is the perfect first step towards convincing oneself that deed math equals the best evidence of intent and therefore slapping deed math on the ground is justifiable.
I've seen some dual licensees slap math on the ground due to arrogance, but many of the worst offenders in my area are good men and women who feel bad about charging, "too much". If any of the latter are reading this, your knowledge is valuable, please charge more for it so you can at least pay your crews the type of wage that will keep them wanting to learn and improve and become a PLS.
Merry Christmas
If you want to become a better surveyor:
Treat the monuments with reverence; treat the math with distain.
Some surveyors simply need an attitude adjustment.
I don't work in a metes and bounds state, but I'm assuming it's easier to defend rejecting a pipe in court than it is rejecting a wall.
Especially with that, what was it called, "Open and notorious" occupation of space they mention in the clauses for Adverse possession. A wall is pretty open and notorious. Just learned (Since I am in NY) that NY does not counts fences or hedgerows as Open or notorious. IT has to have a building on it to be declared adverse possession. TMYK
Because there's no better evidence of a boundary than the actual lines run on the ground and agreed upon by the abutters. Who cares what marks the end when you have a stone wall or stream or blaze and paint that marks the actual line.
Regarding why surveyors ignore old evidence, I believe it relates more to pricing. Generally speaking, (warning this means I'm talking about many, but not all surveyors) surveyors do not value their knowledge to the same degree as do other professions. My guess is that many of us came from blue collar backgrounds not white collar. Many, maybe most, boundary surveyors bill based on field and CAD hours with a sprinkling of PLS added to the top. Few calculate risk and perhaps fewer recognize the value of their hard won experience and add it to the PLS rate. While engineers and architects bid based on qualifications, surveyors generate a price and begin reducing it to a point where they think they'll get the job. Beginning each boundary project with a barebones budget is the perfect first step towards convincing oneself that deed math equals the best evidence of intent and therefore slapping deed math on the ground is justifiable.
I've seen some dual licensees slap math on the ground due to arrogance, but many of the worst offenders in my area are decent men and women who feel bad about charging, "too much". If any of the latter are reading this, your knowledge is valuable, please charge more for it so you can at least pay your crews the type of wage that will keep them wanting learn and improve and become a PLS.
We got to re-educate this nonsense out of people....Attorneys Doctors Plumbers Electricians and Engineers have no troubles charging and raising their rates.
Where did this ridiculous idea that surveyors shouldn't charge for their even begin?????
If you want to become a better surveyor:
Treat the monuments with reverence; treat the math with distain.
Some surveyors simply need an attitude adjustment.
AMEN!
With respect to AP, evidence of established boundaries recognized by coterminous owners much more often is best evidence of the original line than AP. The record distance not fitting the evidence doesn't automatically make it AP. It makes it recorded as and measured as.
The discussion should be about acquiescence to monumented boundary, not adverse possession. No parcel is changing ownership; only an uncertainty in the parcels' boundary is in play.
With respect to AP, evidence of established boundaries recognized by coterminous owners much more often is best evidence of the original line than AP. The record distance not fitting the evidence doesn't automatically make it AP. It makes it recorded as and measured as.
Came here to say this.