been here reviewing and approving/rejecting title surveys for about a month now.
i really had no idea how bad the average is. and at this point i'm comfortable calling it the average. i'm reviewing ALTAs and TSPS Category 1A surveys (basically, the state sanctioned version of an ALTA) on commercial sites statewide at a rate of 3-4 a day.
while many of the issues i find are entirely understandable- either as a professional who understands the context of being busy and the nature of the task, or just as a human (typos, for instance)- the frequency of the negligence to basic minimum standards is staggering. whole tracts hung on a single monument (which, as many times as not is clearly suspect in its own right), bases of bearings that make absolutely no sense, complete disregard of record and/or the obvious dereliction of attempting to retrace record, cutting and pasting title commitment text wholesale into a survey, complete failure to address title exceptions, refusing! (after it was specifically requested and statute cited) to call adjoiners on a metes and BOUNDS description (this one was near downtown dallas).
some of it is funny though: one surveyor insists on certifying to TEN THOUSANDTHS of SQUARE FEET, yet rounds bearings to minutes. one guy has a block length that is 32 FEET (13%) longer than record. i called him to ask why and found myself on the receiving end of a conversation that sounded similar to many i'd delivered in the past to whom i assumed to be uninitiated pencil pushers "well, those old timers didn't have the tools we have today to measure with precision." then he proceeded to tell me that little towns often have these issues, and it was understandable that i wouldn't be familiar with it since i sit here in metropolis. oh, he's the only surveyor in that little town, btw.
quickly starting to realize the rock on one side of me and the hard place on the other: the title companies have no interest in being cops. they make their money by writing policies. that is contingent upon keeping clients. if i start slaughtering every survey that comes in the door then their clients will start taking their surveys and title policies to companies who aren't quite so picky about Ps and Qs. the examiners are more sympathetic, but the ultimate line is drawn by the underwriter based upon the calculated risk.
and i've never been the kind of guy to go siccing the board on a colleague- have found that phone calls and emails and personal contact with the intent of open discussion of issues tends to solve most issues pretty well. and, honestly, if i start turning people into the board then i'm dealing with issue stated in the paragraph above.
i have no idea how long this job will last- after a month it increasingly feels like the whole thing is gonna go sideways somehow. which is fine- that can and may well happen without any feelings being hurt. part of the reason i wanted to do this was to maybe make some small contribution to the maintenance of practice and standards. i don't think i realized just how slipshod the whole thing is. our state board is underfunded, understaffed, and really prostrate to take any sort of active tack toward enforcement. we are not a recording state- which i know is gonna be the first thing out of a bunch of mouths. and good luck seeing that change any time ever, in case you're not the least bit familiar with how we do things here in six flags country.
i reckon the underlying point here is this: if you've even read this post you care more than a bunch of people who are representative of what we do as a profession. so thanks, and keep up the good work.
That is disappointing to hear. I worked in Austin for a while and generally hold Texas Surveyors in high regard.
If you can manage to hold it together, please do so. More than a few of my friendships started with contact over the issues you describe.
Good luck, Tom
Mr Flyin Solo, I read it. I was having reactions as I read it.
My thoughts are, 90% of our problems, come from 10% of the practitioners. However, 10% of these practitioners, are doing 90% of the work, because they are better at business, and no good at surveying. Or don't care.
So, we WANT you to stay in your position, and send letters, to some of the WORST of them. As you do this, some of the others, will "get the message". others, of course, will have to be wrestled out of their scams. Those are harder to solve.
Best to you.
Nate
George Carlin once noted:
"Think about the stupidity of the "average" person...then realize half of the population is dumber than that."
...And he has a point.
We have our share of dumbass surveyors here in Oklahoma also. I see the same sub-standard stuff from the same folks over and over. And they occasionally get busted by the BOR, pay their fine, and continue on with their work. It's a race to see if you can keep your license by paying fines until you get to retirement. In my opinion these surveyors don't have clients; they have victims.
The one ray of hope is that all of my colleagues and myself really do strive to perform at a professional level, even though a few other surveyors do not. So in my mind those guys are probably really a minority. But how many turds does it take to spoil the punchbowl? Even if it's a really small turd and a really big punchbowl, the effect is permanent.
All we can do is continue with a professional attitude toward our work.
It is a completely different perspective from the other side of the counter, isn't it. What may help you get through the miasma is the thought that the average survey submitted should start improving. However, you bring up a valid point about repeat business. It's an altruistic goal you have in mind, hang in there.
Your title company may begin earning a reputation for quality transactions and getting referrals for that reason.
Warren Smith, post: 403832, member: 9900 wrote: Your title company may begin earning a reputation for quality transactions and getting referrals for that reason.
well, that's the jumping off point. which is to say: it already is. i recognized that as a practitioner, and many others do as well. which makes the whole thing even more interesting, as i've already been asked to... "tone down"... my comments multiple times. which i also understand from a title company's perspective. i AM over-commenting in terms of insurability issues (bearing basis notes, for instance). but it's going to be awfully hard to turn a blind eye to this stuff.
I've been reviewing surveys for over 10 years for several different entities. Most surveys I see are well done. Most are professional in their appearance and accuracy (the text matches the drawing). Most are trying to do what should be done. Everyone makes mistakes from time to time. Simple typos and such are no big deal, most of the time. There are a few bad apples, but not very many.
One irritant was a case of reporting bearings to the ten thousandth of an arc second on lengths of 400 feet and less. An entire arc second amounts to 0.026 feet in a full mile. So one would have to go 10,000 miles to find an error of that amount based on a single ten thousandth of an arc second.
The issue with the block being 32 feet too long does happen on occasion. We have an addition from 1868 to a small city that was the west half of the southeast quarter of the section. The plat shows a rectangular tract where all dimensions add up to either 1320 feet or 2640 feet. Development of that addition began in one corner and radiated outward towards the far boundaries. Those measurements were fairly accurate. But, when the last lots were finally sold adjacent to the far boundaries whatever was left was whatever was left regardless of assumptions on the plat about perfect sections and right angles.
As a reviewer, it is humbling to submit my own plats to others for review. I most definitely do not want to appear to be a slacker.
Holy Cow, post: 403837, member: 50 wrote: The issue with the block being 32 feet too long does happen on occasion.
understood, i've done a few of those myself. however... 1. just a cursory search using resources available to the public (google earth and the GLO on-line map collection) and i found- in under 10 minutes- enough compelling evidence to suggest that this is not, in fact, what is occurring in this case. now keep in mind the nature of this issue is not something your average title examiner would be looking for in most cases. BUT 2. there is ZERO explanation- either on the face of the survey or else in a report to accompany it- to explain the patent discrepancy between record and measured. just a block floating in space, 13% longer than expected. no ties across streets in any direction, no ties to anything else. he inadvertently almost did everyone a favor (yes, i mean exactly that) by being a derelict, as had he provided some sort of justification for it the examiner may well have been satisfied and kicked it on down the line. but now he's going to have to do a little extra work to explain himself against the info i found.
I'm just curious what your job is? It appears you are reviewing these for a title company? You are also licensed?
The reason I ask is most of the time some attorney reviews them and he may or may not have a clue what he is looking at.
David Livingstone, post: 403849, member: 431 wrote: I'm just curious what your job is? It appears you are reviewing these for a title company? You are also licensed?
The reason I ask is most of the time some attorney reviews them and he may or may not have a clue what he is looking at.
I'm curious too. A professional even anonymous would not use the terms derelict and various connotations without having some extensive review experience and licensure as such.
If you aren't part of the solution.....ah y'all know the rest.
i apologize for assuming my history here was known. yes i am licensed. Texas RPLS 5901. my anonymity is not terribly important to me, i will not betray that of the parties involved, however, regardless of how slipshod i- as a fellow registrant- would and do recognize their work to be as much.
i am quite certain you could find problems in various surveys of mine were you to randomly wade through the lot of them. however, what you would not ever find is the kind of wholesale rejection of professionally adopted, accepted, and practiced standards that i was taught and/or required to learn in order to become registered.
David Livingstone, post: 403849, member: 431 wrote: I'm just curious what your job is? It appears you are reviewing these for a title company? You are also licensed?
The reason I ask is most of the time some attorney reviews them and he may or may not have a clue what he is looking at.
and this would seem to be the slippery slope: it would seem that this assumption has evolved- in SOME surveyors- into a get-out-jail-free card when talking to anyone on the phone or the other end of an email in regard to survey work. i certainly got a comically patronizing lesson in small town 19th century measurin' this morning from somebody who clearly assumed i was some schmo. never mind i talked to him not 2 months ago when i chased his work on a different tract- one of the last projects i did before taking this job.
the odd space i find myself in right now is this: it's true. non-professionals (including my current co-workers, i'm discovering) are often completely oblivious to much of the minutiae we take for granted on the face of a survey. the danger is in us developing an attitude that a comment or question from a non-professional is to be automatically dismissed because it comes from some assumed rube.
I have a close friend I started surveying with over 40 years ago. He is now a big wheel with the State Board. Without getting him into too much trouble I will say more than once he has asked me to review some of the fodder he has concerning surveys and surveyors that may or may not meet our minimum standards. It is eye opening.
One of the more difficult things to ascertain when reviewing some of this stuff is whether or not due diligence was shown. There are a lot of bad surveys out there that actually meet the minimum standards. But it is obvious to a professional reviewer that judgment calls were made in the course of the survey that (in my professional opinion) were bullcrap and the surveyor merely "streamlined" his investigation to get out of there and minimize field time.
In those cases, unless title has been damaged or there is something fraudulent, it is difficult to "write 'em up" for just being a cheap dumbass. Our BOR has a difficult job in separating the really fraudulent surveys from an abbreviated survey that should have been more in-depth. It is against our statutes to fail the minimum standards, but unless you cost somebody some money or damage title, it is not against the statutes to be the stupidest surveyor in the phone book. A sad state of affairs, but often true.
I think it's hard to draw the line on what you need to have corrected and what you just don't like. If the text on the plat is illegible, that is something you need to send back and tell them it is illegible, but that is a matter of opinion sometimes. They might say "I can read it just fine." Also taking into account what your job is, and whether you are you the actual client. If the actual client is the homeowner, you have less to hang your hat on. But you should have some minimum requirements you need on a plat written down, and whoever hires the surveyor should have to give them the minimum requirements. (I know that there are minimum requirements in the law, but even a statement that if those are not met, the plat will be rejected...that kind of thing.) It's harder to comment on what you do and don't like. I hate it when I see an area to the thousandth of an acre, and also to the thousandth of a square foot. If I have other "requirements" that I need them to fix, I might suggest that they consider that the nearest thousandth of a square foot to be quite a bit higher precision than would ever be practical, but not have it on the list of what must be repaired. (If you had a drafting manual and were able to tell them they must meet those requirements, that would be different.)
right- that part was the first bitter pill, probably illustrated best by metes and bounds: i quickly recognized that no matter how inartful some of the language was, it was technically correct, so it does the job.
but my immediate solution for other issues- those not of subjective taste but of professional standards- has been to paste rules and regulations in verbatim as comments, whenever possible and to whatever reasonable extent. again to beat the bearing basis note to death- texas natural resource code plainly states how this needs to be done. in the exact same manner that an ALTA cert is standard. you wouldn't (actually you probably would) believe the myriad wacky ways surveyors try to get creative on stating their bearing basis. so in such cases i just add a comment of "please refer to TNRC 21.075: ''" so as not to appear pedantic and capricious. you'd think i was telling these guys how to make love to their wife with the responses we get back. what i don't get is: why? 1. it's done for you- you don't have to stick yourself out on any particular limb by adopting that statement. 2. it's the law.
i've done the exact same thing now for a few different surveys wherein not a monument was called for, not even a calculated point. just bearings and Ds to "the northwest corner herein" etc.: copy and paste the pertinent sections of ALTA/NSPS standards and the TSPS manual of practice minimum standards clauses. again- that way it's not just some dunderhead arbitrarily being a battleaxe.
all that said- and back around to your point, tom, is the thing i wish i could add to the rule citations i listed just now is this: "have some damn shame!" i ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer but i've got a pretty good idea how doing that would go over.
One time I had a survey to review that stood out in the crappy-approach category. Although four or five surveys had already been made in the section, none of them had any influence on what was shown. Two section corners were accepted and two were set. All quarter corners were calculated to be at half distance on straight lines, but none were set by the surveyor. A theoretical (perfect) center corner was determined but not set. One quarter section was then split into four aliquots but none of those corners were monumented except the two critical to the purpose of the survey.
The problem: All four section corners existed plus two of the four quarter corners and a center of section had been established decades earlier and used on at least two surveys that were of file in the county records. It's no wonder the final solution in no way resembled what was on the ground and the client wanted to sue his neighbor. It was, however, a lovely plat that appeared to be very professionally drawn.
Taking criticism is one of the hardest things to do in life, surveyors are no exception. If I truely have a mistake on my plat, I always thank the person for pointing it out and I will issue a new plat. Some comments I get are silly but I just go ahead and change things to make them happy. Some things I make a stand on and won't change.
For example I've been getting comments on the flood cert on ALTA's. The town I work in did not adopt the FEMA flood map. I can't issue an opinion on the flood zone when the map doesn't exist. Some lawyer, I don't know the source, came up with a flood zone map for an area where no FEMA was present. I had to walk him through the FEMA site step by step to prove it to him. It does seem the comments are getting better lately and I haven't seen on of those silly certs they often put out wanting to give surveyors more liability in quite a while.
[USER=8089]@flyin solo[/USER]
It sounds like you're being fair. When you think about who the agreement is with, (American Land Title Association and the NSPS) you are right on. Consider that these same guys also get asked to stamp to impossible statements by some Title companies/Lawyers etc. You're only asking to do their job in comparison. We hate being treated as non-professionals and then you see some of the crap our brethren puts out.
Keep up the good work.
Great post! I too had 20 years in the private side before going to work for an agency reviewing survey products. It can be very eye opening being on the other side of the counter. Jp
Talking about reviewing plats. My brother, (the preacher) once found a major bust, on a shortcutted survey by my dad, that he had worked on. He wrote across the face of the plat "SHjT PLAT" and placed it in the front of the folder.
When my dad found it, he wanted to reprove my brother for it, but, he had to climb over his shortcutted job, to do it. He never did reprove my brother.
