Traversing the Law Latest Article

What Georgia case law are you using to determine the reasonable positional tolerance?

What you speak of is another tool in our toolbox...common practice. It should get you in the general area of a monument 99% of the time. What Lucas is talking about is ignoring evidence of the location of a boundary in favor of measurements.

The part of your question that bothers me is "If I find corners and the figures match within a reasonable positional tolerance then I will hold the found monuments and set a pin based on others that I have found and feel comfortable with."

Reasonable positional tolerance does not a monument make. Reliance by landowners on a monument is what gives that monument its legal standing, whether it meets a surveyor's unreasonable expectation of "reasonable positional tolerance" or not. This expectation is what leads to the pincushion corner.

> I typically have some work sheet with the deed or plat plotted of the property I am surveying along with the adjoiners. I "STAKEOUT" all the time looking for corners of some sort. If I find corners and the figures match within a reasonable positional tolerance then I will hold the found monuments and set a pin based on others that I have found and feel comfortable with. (speaking of working in traditional subdivisions of course) Is this not part of the what we do or am I missing something? Perhaps a little clarification on the subject would help me figure this one out.

Your basic procedure is probably what many of us do. From the information in descriptions, plats, maps, and other sources, we develop search areas and use measurements to guide us to those areas where we then search for evidence of the boundaries and corners (physical evidence is only part of the evidence we need to search for - parol is important too). Too many only look for the traditional survey monuments such as rebars, pipes, etc., but monuments are not limited to only those things, a monument is any object occupying the position of the corner (or referencing/witnessing it). As others have said a set amount of measurement "error" is not the correct way to evaluate the evidence found. Because you are asking, you are on the right track - like a true professional, keep asking, researching, doubting, confirming, learning..........

There are a couple of great quotes from the article:

This is one of the reasons we can’t make money surveying property—nobody sees any value in it and some actually may look at a survey as a potential liability, and couple that with the fact that we allow anyone with a license to survey property, competent to do so or not. We license the minimally competent, allow them to go out and mess around with people’s property rights so long as they can run a closure and measure with precision. Let’s not forget they also bid the job at the lowest price because it’s not too hard to slap some math on the ground. Finding where the property lines have already been established on the ground is an irrelevant consideration and, besides, who can spend that kind of time on a boundary stakeout.

and especially:

These are some of the problems with the profession, so what are some solutions? As I said last month and on other occasions in this column, we could easily regulate a fix by simply differentiating between good practice and bad. But we don’t have that kind of time. We would need about half the profession to die off to make any meaningful regulatory changes because some of the worst offenders actually sit on our boards and run our professional organizations.

Wow! I couldn't agree more, at least from this part of the country.

Translating the Latest Article

I ran the text of that article through an online program that translates Loogasian into English. The following is the text after translation:

******* Begin Translation into English *************

Technology is putting "traditional" land surveying out of business and GISers will probably take up the function.

To keep this from happening, land surveyors need to quit trying to measure anything accurately. This is why GISers will win out. They don't sweat the little stuff and can see fences and stuff in aerial photos without having to get the shovel out. If land surveyors would quit worrying about making accurate measurements, they would then be entrusted with the "protection of the nation's property boundaries". Otherwise, the GISers will get to do that because ... stuff.

Now, by "traditional surveying" we mean of course having a license and some professional knowledge and skills. The advantage that GISers have is that they can "determine" property boundaries in their offices without having a license or spending time looking for actual evidence that doesn't appear in an aerial photo or public record.

Where I live in Georgia, nobody hires surveyors to survey property. They're worried that an actual surveyor will find that their boundaries aren't where the GIS shows them to be. That would, of course, be the end of the world if that happened. Western civilization would come to an end and everything. I mean, somebody might have to even move a fence! That would be a major bummer!

Apart from nobody wanting to hire a surveyor in Georgia (aside, of course, from those folks who actually do want to hire a surveyor), the other problem is nobody makes any money surveying in Georgia (aside, of course, from those folks who do). So all sorts of stuff happens.

Naturally, if Georgia surveyors promised their clients that they'd never have to move a fence and that their property would look just like the GIS showed it, that would be cool. It isn't clear why anyone would ever want a surveyor to tell them that their fences are their property lines, but if we all sit through about 200 hours of seminars, maybe something will pop up.

The other real problem with surveying is geomatics. Yes, I have done a "limited review" of what the geomatics schools are teaching and have determined conclusively, without a doubt that it has nothing to do with land surveying.

However, I have a plan. If surveyors could just take about 200 hours of seminars, then they would know how to solve all problems. That often would require moving fences, but seminar attendees would learn the ten habits of effective surveyors that would leave their clients so dazzled that there wouldn't be any room for complaint.

One of the secrets to this new approach to traditional fenceline surveying is giving it a new name. I propose "status quo surveying". No digging for monuments will of course be allowed because the status quo might not like it. That's a given. If it isn't in plain sight, it might as well not exist and if it doesn't show up in an aerial photo, chances are it isn't status quo material, anyway.

And after the status quo surveyor has pointed out the fences that he or she is going to base a "Report of Status Quo Survey" upon, the clients may want to ask why they bothered to hire a surveyor in the first place. This is where the conference comes in. If the parties agree with the surveyor's identification of status quo fences, then the main point of disagreement will probably be the bill that the status quo surveyor presents them with for basically telling them nothing about their land that they didn't already know. A coin flip or arm wrestling match is a good way to settle those disagreements professionally.

Naturally, this won't always work. There will be times when you have duelling status quos, gaps and overlaps in status quos. The status quo surveyor can usually encourage the parties to submit these disputes to the GIS manager for arbitration. After all, the GISer has been at work determining property boundaries for longer than the quo had any status and, having never actually been to the property, will be an entirely disinterested party.

Right now, you're probably asking yourself: "how can I become a status quo surveyor?" Well, if you sell your expert measurer type equipment and unload that metal detector and shovel on some unsuspecting "traditional" surveyor, you should have enough money to pay for the first fifty hours of the necessary seminars. Act now as seating is limited.

******* End Translation into English *************

Translating the Latest Article

> I ran the text of that article through an online program that translates Loogasian into English. The following is the text after translation:
>

Me thinks your on-line Loogasian translator is out of calibration, you better download it and run it thru Star*Net a few dozen times, maybe it can get the residuals down to within, who knows, maybe this solar system?

Relative Positional Tolerance

I used the wrong terminology while writing "relative positional tolerance" in relation to boundary corners. My point is if the calculated corners versus the found corners are close and the possession lines cofirm the corners then I hold what I have found (which is what I do most of the time anyway, as I think most of us do).

I really enjoy Lucas' articles and thoughts on the subject of property boundaries and specifically how our thinking is wrong is relation to those boundaries. That's why 'Note 3' kind of got me worried. His best quote isn't from any of his articles but his book "Alabama Boundary Law"

"The land surveyor's trust is also a simple truth: Surveyors are the stewards of the nation's property boundaries. For the vast majority of people who own land or a home in which they live their lives, raise their families, seek shelter and find comfort, their home and their property are the greatest treasure they have on this Earth. They don't have big stock portfolios, they aren't the captains of industry, and they aren't Real Estate tycoons. But they do have a little piece of God's green Earth that they can call their own. This is quite simply the American Dream. And we---as land surveyors---have been entrusted with maintaining and protecting their property boundaries." ( Jeff Lucas, Alabama Boundary Law, Page 37)

well said Mr. Lucas....well said.

My interpretation is he uses "staking out" to refer to "creating" an original boundary when there actually is evidence available to retrace an existing boundary.

Creating a boundary from the metes of an old deed should only be the very last resort, after proving beyond reasonable doubt there is no evidence of the original boundary, and there are no existing boundaries established via unwritten means.

"positional tolerance" in the context you used it is an essential part of evaluating the above. The reliance needed in retracement is that which happened at the time of the deed. Distinguishing monuments from that time period versus junk needs consideration of how well the various irons, sticks, stakes, stones positions agree with each other. If they are all in agreement within 5 feet except one that is 15 feet off, we can make an inference from that evidence.

If you can't retrace it, then more recent reliance without regard to "positional tolerance" can be looked at in the context of an unwritten boundary.

If neither of the last two above resolve the question, and no agreements can be reached, then a boundary must be created from scratch using the metes of the deed. This is so rare I don't believe I've ever seen it more than once or twice, but must be an extensive problem in some areas judging by the article. Of course it's much simpler and cheaper to perform the last step first, and therein lies the problem.

If You Stake the Deed, And Monuments Are Within Tolerance

You have proven the deed and the deed holds.

There is no need to adjust the deed to the monuments, and you are wrong if you do so.

Paul in PA

Isn't that what it is all about? If that alone isn't reason enough for every Professional Land Surveyor to strive even harder to learn about our duties and how to perform them better, then those that are not so inspired need to immediately seek another line of work. The public deserves no less.

If You Stake the Deed, And Monuments Are Within Tolerance

> You have proven the deed and the deed holds.
>
> There is no need to adjust the deed to the monuments, and you are wrong if you do so.
>
> Paul in PA

OK. Please share these "tolerances". I just finished a survey last Thursday (two days ago), accepting the creating monuments (subd lot created in 1999). I now am wondering if they should have been rejected as they were not exactly at their reported positions (0.5 ft plus/minus). Please hurry!! The owner is building the fence this weekend, and if necessary I can still call him off until I adjust his boundary.

If You Stake the Deed, And Monuments Are Within Tolerance

In PA the requirement is to locate monuments within 0.10' tolerance. In that light there can be no argument that a monument within 0.10' reflects the corner. Professional judgement follows from that. I recall from New jersey specs for farmland and open space surveys, that a monument within 1.5' is acceptable to represent a corner and a new monument is not required.

You mention a fence, is or was there a fence in place? An existing fence may not represent a corner, yet it may represent a license to repair, maintain or replace a fence.

Paul in PA

If You Stake the Deed, And Monuments Are Within Tolerance

> In PA the requirement is to locate monuments within 0.10' tolerance. In that light there can be no argument that a monument within 0.10' reflects the corner. Professional judgement follows from that. I recall from New jersey specs for farmland and open space surveys, that a monument within 1.5' is acceptable to represent a corner and a new monument is not required.
>
> You mention a fence, is or was there a fence in place? An existing fence may not represent a corner, yet it may represent a license to repair, maintain or replace a fence.
>

No fence in place, they are building the fence now, that is why they called me - to be sure they put the fence in the correct location.

I'm confused, "the requirement is to locate monuments within 0.10' tolerance", but how does the courts jump to anything recovered at the corner being greater than 0.10' out of position disqualifies the monument as being controlling? Please include case cites.

Are you sure you are not confusing the technical requirements of surveyors making measurements to report what they found with what the law actually says about original creating monuments being greater evidence of the intent of the parties over mere measurements?

Duane always has the best, most useful comments on here.

After 0.10' It Is Professional Judgement

And your opinion may vary from mine.

Paul in PA

Translating the Latest Article

Actually, a person should always run a piece written in Loogasian through a translator to remove the blather and distill what typically are some nutty premises to statements in plain English.

Basically, the latest Loogasian piece is complaining that Georgia surveyors are generally incompetent while at the same time complaining that no surveying education programs exist that can train competent surveyors. The reality is almost certainly that both the fenceline surveyor approach that the piece advocates and the COGO approach complained of, do relatively little toward the problem of finding boundaries. Both just make expensive messes.

A Fair Summary of the Article about Georgia Surveying

And here is an even shorter version of the article. I've distilled each paragraph into a plain statement of the idea that the writer expressed, but without the decorative flourishes and innuendo in the original.

1. The number of land surveyors is dwindling because of technology.

2. If you are making accurate survey measurements, you aren't locating the boundary.

3. Land surveyors aren't actually locating boundaries on the ground.

4. Nobody (in Georgia) hires surveyors because it will just stir up disputes.

5. Surveyors (in Georgia) don't make much money and are generally incompetent.

6. The board of registration (in Georgia) is packed with incompetent surveyors.

7. Surveying schools don't teach anything that a professional surveyor would need to know about determining property boundaries.

8. The entire concept of land surveying needs to be reinvented.

9. Surveyors are either expert measurers or deed stakers.

10. What surveyors need to focus on is maintaining the status quo since that is seldom in dispute.

11. If in the surveyor's judgment some "iron" does not in fact mark a boundary, then the surveyor should inform his or her client and the other interested parties.

12. If his or her client and the other interested parties disagree with the surveyor's judgment, then a written boundary agreement is needed.

13. By using fences and whatever pieces of scrap iron of unknown origin are found in place to determine boundaries, land surveyors will once again become true professionals, highly valued by the public.

14. Earlier surveyors practiced in a time when people were interested in knowing where boundaries were and surveyors were respected as experts for being able to find old lines.

15. This new practice model won't require surveyors to find old lines but will focus on talking about stuff.

16. Surveyors also need to move into the practice of law without, of course, obtaining law licenses.

17. If you don't agree with me, you are the reason that people don't hire surveyors (in Georgia).

I think that's a perfectly fair summary of the article about the sad state of surveying in Georgia.

Surveyors Indicate What is Important

18 are concerned with surveying and survey law.
19 are concerned with mechanical pencils.

Paul in PA

Surveyors Indicate What is Important

Most are concerned with both, as well as with many other things:-)

Don