Notice of difference of opinion
> >Well, the surveyor's lath clearly expressed a significant difference of opinion as to the location of the common boundary.
>
> What a load of horsesh it
Well, when one surveyor says "this is the corner" and another surveyor says "no, this isn't the corner", that is what is known as a "dfference of opinion". I trust that differences of 0.3 ft. in position are considered significant in the area where you survey.
Well said Adam. I agree.
Everything we do revolves around judgement and the harmony of all the evidence. Sometimes the evidence supports the found monument and sometimes it does not.
Another Surveyor -
>....and another surveyor says "no, this isn't the corner"...
When I made the OP, the first thing I said after the heading was..
Thats what was written on a lath next to the Tract Corner shown below...
I dont know if the lath author is a party chief, LS, Contractor.. I do not know who attributed the title of 'Surveyor' to the lath author, I have not looked through all the posts to find out. Hell, it may have been me...
This is all small potatoes anyway.
I think the word 'Tract' may be a bit confusing to some. In California a 'Tract' is a subdivision of a portion of land into single lots. A Tract Map consists of more that five lots. A Parcel Map can be up to four new lots and in some commercial cases, five lots. It depends on zoning. In Texas I think the word 'tract' can represent a deed describing a single piece of land. Los Angeles stopped the practice of cutting up land by deed back in the early 60's which went state wide in 1972.
Subdivision in California ( LA County area ) is a Tract Map or Parcel Map. It may mean something else in other parts of the US...
If I get the opportunity to do so, I may just go over and have a chat with the adjacent party north of the pipe. Maybe I can track down the author of the lath.
No Bar Unbent
> I believe the original location controls. It is a mere matter of evaluating the evidence of where that once was. The existing original monument in its current position may, in fact, be the best available evidence.
I have an example in mind that perfect illustrates the fallacy of uncritically accepting every bent-up marker one ever finds. It was a rebar that was set in the late 1960's to mark a lot corner on the boundary of a subdivision. The rebar was set with the top three or four inches up. At some point, it got bent over, probably when a nearby utility pole was set, I'd guess.
Well in about 1986, another firm arrives to survey the adjoining tract and to subdivide a part of it adjoining the the marker in question. Using the Holy Cow method, they locate the top of the bent-up bar and consider that to be the corner with no questions asked, thereby shifting the corner by about 0.33 ft. and not realizing that the bar can be easily rotated in the hole to move their corner opinion in a circle of about 0.66 ft. diameter. In other words, the object that had once marked a definite location no longer did. It was no longer a monuments.
We restored the corner by removing the bar, straightening it, and resetting it plumb in the hole after using a drill to deepen the hole a bit to leave less rod up.
No Bar Unbent
>
> I have an example in mind that perfect illustrates the fallacy of uncritically accepting every bent-up marker one ever finds. It was a rebar that was set in the late 1960's to mark a lot corner on the boundary of a subdivision. The rebar was set with the top three or four inches up. At some point, it got bent over, probably when a nearby utility pole was set, I'd guess.
>
> Well in about 1986, another firm arrives to survey the adjoining tract and to subdivide a part of it adjoining the the marker in question. Using the Holy Cow method, they locate the top of the bent-up bar and consider that to be the corner with no questions asked, thereby shifting the corner by about 0.33 ft. and not realizing that the bar can be easily rotated in the hole to move their corner opinion in a circle of about 0.66 ft. diameter. In other words, the object that had once marked a definite location no longer did. It was no longer a monuments.
>
> We restored the corner by removing the bar, straightening it, and resetting it plumb in the hole after using a drill to deepen the hole a bit to leave less rod up.
Completely a different situation-
Your story Kent, as entertaining as it was, does not apply.
Apples and Doughnuts
The Pipe marks the corner
Notice of difference of opinion
> Well, when one surveyor says "this is the corner" and another surveyor says "no, this isn't the corner", that is what is known as a "dfference of opinion". I trust that differences of 0.3 ft. in position are considered significant in the area where you survey.
There were never two surveyors in conversation.
We have a pipe that is 0.17' in dia, roughly. A lath that says it is 'off' by 0.34'. So, were down to 2" between a monument and an opinion written on a piece of wood, edge to edge, if another 2" pipe was set at the 'True Corner' in a hillside area. You tell me if that's significant. You have seen the aerial of the area.
I bet Keith Williams is rolling on the floor laughing over this thread. Man I never though that such an innocent post about a lath would lead to this. At least it kept a few of us occupied over the holiday.
Sorry about the Horsesh it comment Kent. It was late and my knees were just killing me. Damn arthritis anyway...
No Bar Unbent
> The Pipe marks the corner
I get the idea that you're using the word "corner" in a COGO sense, rather than a legal one. Sure, you can pretend that some pipe someone tried to set on an existing boundary, but failed to, shifts the boundary, but I don't envy your chances in court. :>
Parcel Map Trivia
>In California a...Parcel Map can be up to four new lots and in some commercial cases, five lots.
Under certain circumstances, a California Parcel Map isn't limited in the number of lots it contains. In general, removal of the lot limit is tied to parcel size and/or access to a public street.
My first house was located in this 36-lot subdivision:
This is basic stuff
I'm not sure Kent how your Coordinate Geometry plays into this.
One of the basic, fundamental and dare I say, remedial premises for the establishment of locating and perpetuating land boundaries is that bearings/distances and mathematical analysis are more often informative rather than controlling terms.
Dimensions give way to the existence of monuments.
Bearings and distances are elements to be used to pinpoint an area of investigation to recover a monument that was established in good faith to mark a corner.
No Bar Unbent-Kent
Aren't you making the assumption that the previous measurements were made with the standard of care that you use?
Isn't it fairly well accepted that measurements are more accurate now than previously, before EDM's, etc?
What about the fact that monuments establish an intent and are superior to measurements, especially when there is a minor variance?
Parcel Map Trivia - Jim
LA County / City will not allow those types of PM's. Max of 5 parcels.
Notice of difference of opinion
> > Well, when one surveyor says "this is the corner" and another surveyor says "no, this isn't the corner", that is what is known as a "dfference of opinion". I trust that differences of 0.3 ft. in position are considered significant in the area where you survey.
>
> There were never two surveyors in conversation.
>
> We have a pipe that is 0.17' in dia, roughly. A lath that says it is 'off' by 0.34'. So, were down to 2" between a monument and an opinion written on a piece of wood, edge to edge, if another 2" pipe was set at the 'True Corner' in a hillside area. You tell me if that's significant. You have seen the aerial of the area.
The general point not to lose sight of is that you now are aware of another surveyor's finding that the pipe set in 1982 to mark the common corner of Lots 4 and 5 is not on the subdivision boundary and in fact is in error by more than 0.3 ft. So, what is a prudent surveyor who doesn't want to extend his liability exposure to negligence to do? The first thing that prudent surveyor would do is to perform additional work to actually test the key elements of the 1982 surveyor's work that heretofore he has taken entirely on faith.
Would that not consist of:
a) obtaining a copy of the deed by which the 30 ft. strip was severed from the body of the parcel later subdivided into lots, including the subject parcel, Lot 5, in 1982,
b) determining whether the 30 ft. strip has senior rights or not,
c) determining how the boundaries of the 30 ft. strip were described, and
d) determining the location of the S'ly line of the 30 ft. strip that the 1982 map indicates is the true boundary of Lot 5?
Otherwise, if something blows up, the problem is that you are on notice that there is a material discrepancy of opinion and you've stated in public that it doesn't concern you. In other words, you've chosen to disregard a matter that you're aware of that a prudent surveyor would have looked into. That is not the position that a land surveyor wants to be in if some problem shows up related to his or her work.
No Bar Unbent-Kent
> Aren't you making the assumption that the previous measurements were made with the standard of care that you use?
>
I wouldn't call it an assumption. The accuracy of some earlier survey that established multiple markers can be determined simply by comparing the shape and location of the land as reported to that as now found marked. You get a pretty good idea of how well the survey was run. You knew that.
On the one hand we have Mr. Schaut insisting that the boundary is the fence line every time. Now we have Mr. Wholly Cow telling us that we should hold every monument we find. Mr. Schaut at least quotes case law and textbooks.
Please quote me the case law where an uncalled for monument, in and of itself, holds over calls in the deed. Long continued reliance on the monument may give it dignity, but no more than long continued reliance would give a blue gumball.
Sectional subdivision corners may be a different case. These corners exist in law before they are monumented.
Mark
It would be silly to think that uncalled for monuments are always less than the math calls. Up until circa 1970, the standard call in the deed was for a stake. Sometimes, if you're lucky, they'll call for an iron stake. So it calls for a stake, you pull up and find an axle, you're going to have to step and fetch for me NOT to use the axle. Many of our surveys never made it into the public records. Are my corners that I set not good enough since they aren't called for?
Compare apples to apples. Is wholly cow in a recording state? When did old terms go away?
I work to make all of the objects I find hold. Fence corners sometimes, but an iron stake of any kind will most time get the nod, not always, but most time.
So, If Monuments Mean Nothing-Mark
A local surveyor and friend of mine just completed a case where a pipe and stones that he found was held by the judge even though; 1)it was not called for; 2) it missed the only dimension in the abutting deeds by almost 50'.
I can provide you with the decision if you like. It has not been appealed yet so I don't know the cite. But if it's appealed I am sure the decision will stand.
So, If Monuments Mean Nothing-Mark
Had this monument been in place for many years and relied on by the parties? If so, then it derives its dignity from recognition and acquiescence, not from the mere fact that it was a "monument".
In any case (pun intended) local judges may do all sorts of crazy things. That doesn't make precedence.
Kris
If the deed calls for a stake, and you find something that you can reasonably call a stake, then you may have a called for monument. Apply your knowledge of local custom to determine if it is, indeed, the called for monument. If it is you have something to hang your hat on. But sometimes an iron rod is just an iron rod.
No Bar Unbent-Kent
I understand that, yes, but when working in an older subdivision it is common, around here, to set the monuments after approval and recording of the plan. The monuments do not show on the plan but are found in the field after road construction and utility installation.
If minor errors are found in the monument relationships to each other we can determine the amount of "slop" in the previous survey. But, the lot owners EXPECT that the monuments control their property line location, regardless of a tenth here or there, or some other amount of error.
Around here it's standard practice to apportion out the error between found monuments between the effected lots, if you have a run without monuments. Then check with the lines of possession and verify that the homeowners are also holding those lines, too.
Harmony of the neighborhood.
I have one case where a local surveying firm held to record monuments, 800' away from the locus and across two roads and disregarded one original monument that was on the nearest street line with a line of monuments defining that street line. That street line is just opposite locus. Their result is that the third original monument )also the closet of the three) is out of position by 0.8', and the line of various monuments are not to be relied upon. Ultimate result, the client is encroaching by 1.5'. It will disrupt the entire street.
My result, hold the closet original monument and the line of uncalled for monuments and no one encroaches...no problem arise, the lines of occupation fit and no one is up set, except the other surveyors client.
So, If Monuments Mean Nothing-Mark
I love the eternal search for the unified theory of surveying, and suspect no such animal exists.
I can think of two separate cases within the past three weeks where the PLS went both ways, in one setting a capped rebar less than 6 inches from an old axle (absolutely no paper trail on said axle, possibly set by the owner 50 years ago) and in another holding a found pipe that missed record call on 3 different legal descriptions by considerably more than 0.34'.
As was stated by reasonable people, it depends.
