If I understand them, property law books uniformly dictate that the objective of a retracement survey is verification that the conditions found substantially agree with the original survey. But how do you decide when they do not. Let me summarize a case.
A 1949 survey described a sequential subdivision that created senior 1, the eastern boundary of which was defined by a stone wall (this is New England) that ran N 22o 30’ W for 264.66’ to a wall corner. The western boundary was to be a line parallel to the wall and 168’ removed. Subsequently senior 2 was created with this latter line as its eastern boundary; its western boundary was also parallel and 250’ removed, leaving a junior parcel. Senior 2 was likely never actually surveyed as no monuments were set. Other than the stone walls the only monument is an iron pipe at the NW corner of senior 1. My boss surveyed the parent property along the road and the southern end of the stone wall; I subsequently cleared and traversed around just the two parcels and closed at 1:29,000. Our estimate of the wall’s bearing is N 22o 26’ 50” W. These parcels run about 700’ north so the adjustment from N 22o 30’ W moves northern corners on the order of 6”. Two shots on the iron pipe from separate occupy points differed by 0.019’; its location was 5’ east of the intended senior 1 western boundary so it was not set on the intended line.
We need to monument the senior 2 western boundary so what would you do, use N 22o 30’ W or adjust it by 3 minutes?
Wouldn't the record distance from the pipe still fall in/on the wall? Six inches is not very much compared to the stone walls I remember from RI. How do you know you are on the basis of bearing of the original survey?
:good: :good: :good:
Monuments over numbers.
N 22°26'50" W rounds to the record of N 22°30' W. I would say you have good agreement.
Vern,
Guess I didn't make myself clear. The pipe is at the NW corner; the wall ends at the NE corner. The plan and deed state 335' more or less wall-to-pipe and I find 333.92'. So they put the pipe where they said; it just doesn't fall on the line that's 168' from the wall. I just realized I didn't mention the wall jogs east 127' before it continues north at N 12.30 W. That's why the NE wall corner is way more than 168' from the pipe.
Wish I could fix my misspelling of footsteps.
Forgot to address the issue of bearing basis. The deed was plotted and the survey points superimposed. The survey was tied to the southern ends of both walls bounding the parent property. I guess I'd say our bearing estimate is relative to the deed bearing since the wall was plotted at N 22.30 W.
What is the basis of bearing? Around here the magnetic declination changed by about 18 minutes in that time.
Walk in the footsteps
> Forgot to address the issue of bearing basis. The deed was plotted and the survey points superimposed. The survey was tied to the southern ends of both walls bounding the parent property. I guess I'd say our bearing estimate is relative to the deed bearing since the wall was plotted at N 22.30 W.
It sounds like your retracement. so far, has put you pretty close to the 1949 survey (6" in 1949 is pretty darn close). However, sometimes the objective of "following in the footsteps" gets forgotten in the process of plotting deeds, rotating bearings, measuring distances, etc.
"In surveying a tract of land according to a former plat or survey, the surveyor's only duty is to relocate, upon the best evidence obtainable, the courses and lines at the same place where originally located by the first surveyor on the ground. In making the resurvey, he has the right to furnish proof of the location of the lost lines or monuments, not to dispute the correctness of or to control the original survey. The original survey in all cases must, whenever possible, be retraced, since it cannot be disregarded or needlessly altered after property rights have been acquired in reliance upon it. On a resurvey to establish lost boundaries, if the original corners can be found, the places where they were originally established are conclusive without regard to whether they were in fact correctly located, in this respect it has been stated that the rule is based on the premise that the stability of boundary lines is more important than minor inaccuracies or mistakes. But it has also been said that great caution must be used in reference to resurveys, since surveys made by different surveyors seldom wholly agree. A resurvey not shown to have been based upon the original survey is inconclusive in determining boundaries and will ordinarily yield to a resurvey based upon known monuments and boundaries of the original survey. Moreover, in relocating lost monuments the question is not how an entirely accurate survey would have located the lots, but how the original survey stakes located them."
In other words, the "intent" of the stated bearings and distances, are subordinate to the actual expressed "intent" as laid out on the ground and relied upon by the landowners.
I'd probably spend a little more time looking for the missing corners and/or evidence of where they were placed on the ground.
I understood that.
The pipe is the correct distance from the wall. The wall is a monument probably two feet wide more or less. I would say you are there, you just need to figure out your basis of bearings.
Walk in the footsteps
Brian,
Where can I find the passage that you quoted on following in the footsteps? What is the reference?
Stephen
Sounds to me that the deed, which is guide to lead to you what was done on the ground, got you close enough to find the pipe. Any reason to believe that the pipe is/isn't an original mon? Any evidence of reliance by the owner & adjoiners?
Walk in the footsteps
One is:
Boundary Control and Legal Principles, 3rd ed, Curtis M Brown, Walter G. Robillard and Donald A. Wilson. John Wiley & Sons, 1986
Chapter 10, section 9 uses the phrase, but says no one can actually walk in the footsteps...
I borrowed this book from my boss and took copious notes, but to my surprise I never actually captured the phrase in my notes
another: google the phrase to turn up a pdf
GPS AND BOUNDARY RETRACEMENT
by
Knud E. Hermansen
top of page 4
Walk in the footsteps
The common law is filled with similar quotes, but this one is
ADAMS v. HOOVER
196 Mich. App. 646 (1992)
493 N.W.2d 280
