The recent thread on "survey gone horribly wrong", has got me to thinking about how completely whacko, and difficult, this profession is. First, the title alone implies that something that a surveyor did, was not done correctly, when the real root of the problem was that something the land owner, and landowners before them and landowners before them did NOT do correctly (or at all): hire competent, licensed surveyors.
But every week, we read here about some mess someone is trying to clean up. That thread is not the exception.
Name another profession where all you do most of the time, is try to figure out what those who went before you did. Docs? Not often; Hairdressers? Nope. You cut it the way you see it and the next one does the same. Industrial engineers...clean sheet of paper most of the time. Not too many professions I can think of where the main job is cleaning up other peoples Crxx. (Well, there are the rubbish collection and janitorial professions).
No, in this profession a big part of the problem is getting people to hire you in the first place. I'd love to see the ratio of land transfers in the US over the last 100 years that had an accompanying survey. Bet its lower than most think.
Then people occupy the land for any number of years, never think twice about a survey; then one day, they want to do something with it; hire a surveyor, and you're left with the mess of putting together what who knows who did and didn't do when, and if they did do it, how correct was it? Look at all the "pincushion" threads.
Now add technologies that didn't exist 30 years ago to the mix, and you have the potential for conflicts between what's on paper and what's on the ground, on steroids. I know that in my own glacial paced attempt to learn some of what it takes, there are opportunities for blunders at every turn...And that was before I ever put down the field book and picked up a data collector. If someone here ever told me that the mistakes I'm making (wrong point numbers in the DC, poor record keeping, letting batteries die at the worst time, to name a few) are mistakes no one else makes, I'd not believe it. Then there are the questions that come up from supposedly licensed professionals who've been in the game for years, asking whether it's important to convert "grid to ground" and how to do it, or ask what the value of LSA is (and how to do that too).
Add modern CAD systems that have the capability of doing a lot of stuff with data obscurely, combined with operators of varying competency, and you have a virtual sieve for errors to creep in. Then add historical records, lack of record filing, incorrect record filing, fires and floods at the town clerks offices...and that doesn't begin to touch on the myriad possibilities in the field: pins moved/destroyed, never there in the first place, mis labeled, etc.
Perhaps the construction end of things is the exception. (I want a building there...stake it out, pour the concrete...done). Of course you do need to make some attempt it's on the property the people who paid you to site it own...small detail.
But other than that, this profession is whacko. I admire you guys/girls for even trying. It takes a unique kind of soul to sign up for that kind of punishment.
End of rant. Thanks for listening.:-)
> ...But other than that, this profession is whacko. I admire you guys/girls for even trying. It takes a unique kind of soul to sign up for that kind of punishment.
One of the most difficult things about this profession is that every single piece of property is unique. Therefor discussing "what ifs" and "I know a guy that bought.." are really just armchair rhetorical exercises. There are soooooo many minute details that can change the entire perspective in a heartbeat. All evidence and factors must be assayed before a boundary can be determined.
And another aspect that catches our protuberances in the wringer every now and again is that fact that no surveyor is qualified to tell or show a client "what they own". That is really a title issue. But in all actuality, that is why folks hire us...to show them "where their property is at...".
We determine the deeded boundaries and map the physical uses and conditions (occupations). So many other title conditions, laws and statutes can actually affect the actual extent of an estate. Extent being a different animal than a deeded boundary. While a proper survey is the first step in proving clear and marketable title, it is by no means the determining factor. The key to properly providing professional survey services to a client is communicating exactly what it is we are doing for them.
Remember, your title to a piece of property is no better than the survey.
In my best Jack Webb, "Just the facts, ma'am.." 😉
yea there's an infamous surveyor around here that has been dead for several years but lost his license years earlier. now it seems the owners are clearing out because a lot here lately i've been getting stuff he did....a couple months back i get one he missed the angle completely and had to turn that one survey into two (good for me but took 5 times long because i thought "wtf happened and went back a few times to check myself.... few weeks ago there was one he was off like 80 feet on that i went back to the previous deed and found its corners in the 'right' spot.... few days later i get one and he did the one next door - overlapped my deed line by going up the fence... every job i went after him he's been off at least a foot (and that's on a city lot 50' wide).
at least he used a unique way to mark corners - always a large nail with a washer - or a nail and washer....
not that everybody's perfect...
i'm sure he made plenty of money always just using fence posts, fence lines, etc. and seemingly hardly ever finding the corners called for.
i don't know if it's coincidental that he was also a CIVIL ENGINEER!
But that is what makes it such a fascinating and interesting profession. From one day to the next, there is no way to anticipate what challenges lie ahead and any countless ways of getting it wrong. The learning just never ends.
A large part of the problem is that relatively few surveyors actually know what they are supposed to be doing as a retracement surveyor.
Many have found, correctly, that the math involved is generally among the simplest that is employed in any aspect of surveying. They have also found that the measurement procedures required are less rigorous than they are for many other types of surveying, and that in many places, there are no particular measurement standards and in even more places, no one ever checks that the measurement procedures met any kind of standard. so they, perhaps reasonably, conclude that boundary surveying is the easiest surveying one can do.
They don't realize that the primary expertise required in boundary retracement is in recognizing, properly analyzing, and properly reporting valid boundary establishment evidence to find where the boundaries were originally located on the ground by someone competent to do so (which may not have been a surveyor in every case).
Nothing we learned about measuring, adjusting, calculating, or drafting informs us of this primary duty. All of those things are important, but in retracement, they serve a technical supporting role to the professional judgment based in sound reasoning guided by the laws and principles of evidence.
Many of us have taken a class or a few classes on the legal aspects of surveying. The name of the course varies from institution to institution, but they are basically the same. A first level taught from Boundary control and Legal Principles, and a subsequent level taught from Evidence and Procedures for Boundary Location. Much can be said about the pros and cons of these books and their different editions, but they have been and still are good references to work from for general principles. The greatest failing on those courses is often that the instructor is one who has little or no actual boundary experience, has only studied from those two books being taught from, and may even have little or no interest in boundary surveying. Accordingly, the courses are pretty shallow to begin with and are often taught incorrectly.
Surveyors with just these principles in their study history tend to pull out and apply principles out of context, or know so little of the law in their jurisdiction that they end up placing Mr. Robillard's opinion over established legal principle for their area. (see Bloxham v. Saldinger, 228 Cal app 4th 729 (2014), 175 Cal Rptr 3d 650)
Studying the statutes governing evidence and the case law within one's jurisdiction is pretty much required for a surveyor to become competent enough to retrace any but the most recent and well monumented subdivisions.
The common misunderstanding of the retracement surveyor's duty can be summed up with this, from the first response in the "Land Survey gone horribly wrong" thread: "as surveyors, we are required to locate and recreate the deeded descriptions of land, which in some cases do not match the lines of occupation."
The person who made that statement may not have meant it in as limiting a way as it seems, but this is the typical belief of perhaps most who survey boundaries. And by that statement, they generally mean that they are required to follow the deed dimensions when they are given, and must hold other locative calls over occupation when the two conflict. Most of the time, they do not see it as part of their duty to determine when or how the line of occupation was established.
If the line of occupation was established and then the description written with the intent of describing the established line, occupation controls. If the occupation was established according to original stakes which have since disappeared, occupation controls. If, as in the "horribly wrong" thread, father granted to son and father and son physically establish a line of occupation with intent of placing it as they described it, occupation controls.
Here's one that will send many into a tizzy: 12 Am. Jur. 2d §61 does not limit the controlling points to those set by a surveyor by survey prior to or at the time of the original conveyance. It states, in relevant part: "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."
As J.B. Stahl has repeatedly pointed out, the law makes no distinction between a surveyor who placed the points prior to the original conveyance and one who is engaged to later place the described boundaries on the ground, thereby making them real, as long as that surveyor was the first to place them there.
As the OP of this thread pointed out, as a profession, we spend an inordinate amount of effort cleaning up the messes of others. Quite often the mess is started because the parties to early conveyances did not get a surveyor involved at the outset, made their own measurements, wrote their own descriptions, or had them written without benefit of survey. But those messes are quite often compounded by surveyors brought in after several conveyances had been made, lines physically established by the occupants or their predecessors, and any previous controlling objects long since obliterated. Rather than being honest about the amount of effort required, they grab onto questionable control and blindly hold deed dimensions without looking into the questions that might reveal appropriate controlling elements and explain discrepancies between dimensions and occupation, placing new lines and points in locations where none have ever existed and which cannot be reconciled with evidence that might be uncovered by a more diligent effort.
Whether or not the affected landowners decide to abide by the newly set points, the reputation of the profession has taken a hit. Unfortunately, such poorly served landowners don't come to the conclusion that they got what they paid for (having no concept of the amount of work actually required and no baseline to compare), but instead determine that getting a surveyor involved is a waste of money because the results only cause problems for which no solutions are offered and that surveyors really don't know what they are doing.
The good news for us is that as law goes, boundary law is among the most stable, consistent, and easiest to understand. Boundary law is generally based on common sense that is easily understood. The key is to not read with the idea that you need to think like a lawyer to understand what the opinion really says. Sifting through the side issues that often come up in case law can get tedious, but once you get to the rulings, with few exceptions, they almost always make sense. (that's at the appellate level and above. At the trial level things are far less predictable)
If reading cases to get to the heart of the matter bores you into a catatonic state, start with the secondary sources of American Jurisprudence (Vol 12, 2nd Ed, Boundaries; Vol 23 Deeds... these will cross reference other volumes and topics but are the best places to start), Corpus Juris Secundum (Vol 11 Boundaries), and if your state has similar state-specific publications (I don't know if CA is the only state with those), look into those. They will clearly and concisely state the prevailing view of the various principles of evidence and doctrines of law and will refer you to the primary cases that best illustrate the points made.
Our college degree programs really need courses that focus on such study. It's not hard once you know where to start.
Best post of the week
:good:
Is something wrong with the licensing tests? One shouldn't be able to pass without understanding the principles you describe.
Best post of the week
Print it out and nail it to the wall!
:good: :good: :good:
DDSM
Well said Evan, well said.
You are one of the posters that when you post, it is well worth reading, and you did not disappoint. You hit the nail on the head.
Best post of the week
> Is something wrong with the licensing tests? One shouldn't be able to pass without understanding the principles you describe.
Bill, to answer your question briefly - Yes!! Likewise, there are apparently a few deficiencies in many of the educational programs offered and required for surveyors. One only has to read through the catalogs of the university programs to see the problem.
In one program offered near me (a 4 year program) the only offered class for boundary law in ONE 3 credit class - in that class you get a two-fer, boundary law and writing legal descriptions :excruciating: . Yes there are problems.
Evan - great post.
:good:
:good:
My hypothesis is Curtis Brown wrote a book which served a need. The 1950s was a time of huge real estate development. Half of the Sacramento region was built during the 1950s. Civil Engineers needed a simple, straightforward book which provided a formula to Survey the boundaries of their next 500 lot subdivision. They didn't have time to interview people, go ask the Judge or deeply explore conflicts. It works great if you are going to wipe out 50 square miles of land and develop it all. It doesn't matter if Subdivision A encroaches on Subdivision B because everything is gone and re established by old man Spink, for example.
The trouble comes when someone surveys a boundary out in the rural countryside ignoring 100 year old boundaries originally tied to old imprecise 1/16th corners in favor of using the shiny new precise 1/16th corner, for example. If your magic prism pole with controller tells you to jump over the neighbor's fence and hike 50' into their yard maybe you should think about why that might be incorrect.
Evan,
GREAT POST!
I looked for some Am Jur references in the past on the internet, but could not find any. Do you have an internet site where your references are available?
Thank you,
Larry
Thanks all for the kudos. It's kind of humbling when they come from some of the folks I've learned from on this and the former POB forum.
Larry,
I got copies at the Sacramento County Library. Remind me and I'll put what I have on a CD for you this weekend.
The section I referenced above is one of those I gave to Judge B in February.
