Here are two L.A. County Record of Surveys...
http://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/nas/landrecords/survey/RS171/RS171-093.pdf
http://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/nas/landrecords/survey/RS194/RS194-071.pdf
The first one measures from the south. The second one measures from the north. The difference is about a half foot. That isn't the problem.
The common boundary on these R/Ss (the second doesn't show the conflict with the first) is the subject of an unpublished Appellate Case, Hoffman v. Del Rivo, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d (2004), 2004 WL 530731 (a Westlaw cite). According to the discussion Del Rivo's south edge of driveway and south edge of detached garage encroaches 18" onto Hoffman per the first Survey above. The garage and driveway have been there since 1952. Del Rivo is at 3651 Inglewood Boulevard and Hoffman is at 3659 Inglewood Boulevard. I tried to see the lead/tags in concrete in the Google street views but the resolution isn't good enough.
The Superior Court called it an Agreed Boundary. The Appellate Court reversed which I think is correct under our current case law. The Del Rivo's predecessor testified there was a brass survey marker in line with the driveway until the 1960s. Footnote 3: "The marker described by Sneed related to the front of his property from the sidewalk. No rear marker was found. Sneed testified the brass markers were removed by the city in the 1960's when it removed and relocated the sidewalks."
The Del Rivos contended that uncertainty stems from two different Surveyed locations and a third location per the purported brass survey marker. The Court disagrees, saying uncertainty today is not important, what matters is evidence of uncertainty and agreement at the time the driveway and garage were built. That evidence is unavailable. It probably died with one Rogers who preceded Sneed who sold to Del Rivo. Rogers told the Sneeds in 1956 that the garage and driveway are the boundary line between the two lots and the owner to the south never objected until Hoffman acquired the property and had a survey done.
So given the current state of our common law doctrine of Agreed Boundaries that solution is unavailable to the Del Rivos. What is the answer in this case?
There is obviously an 18 inch lot at 3655 Inglewood Boulevard.
> It probably died with one Rogers who preceded Sneed who sold to Del Rivo. Rogers told the Sneeds in 1956 that the garage and driveway are the boundary line between the two lots and the owner to the south never objected until Hoffman acquired the property and had a survey done.
>
> What is the answer in this case?
Question 1: One of the surveyors whose plans you link describes the state of boundaries as "nebulous". Reviewing other records of surveys is that a fair statement? That is, is there actually not a great surplus of evidence pointing to a particular location for the boundary in question?
Here is the 1905 subdivision:
http://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/nas/landrecords/tract/MB0006/TR0006-199a.pdf
The City Engineer Field Books don't appear to be on-line. They would show how the block control might relate to the original subdivision lines.
Hmm, longstanding occupation versus a remote measurement from non-original control. Two surveys don't agree on how to make the measurement.
> Hmm, longstanding occupation versus a remote measurement from non-original control. Two surveys don't agree on how to make the measurement.
Yes, it sounds more like a problem with the state of the evidence used to make the surveys. If there was a "brass disc" in the sidewalk, wouldn't you think there ought to be a record of where it was?
It's interesting to me that neither of the modern surveys show any relation of their theoretical constructions to any pattern of old occupation that one would expect would tend to reflect where boundaries were marked at some early date.
Here is the Parcel Map referenced on the second Survey.
http://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/nas/landrecords/parcel/PM220/PM220-065.pdf
A parcel map is Californian for minor subdivision.
And yet another good example of why record data parcel maps should not be allowed.
Correction
I inadvertently misrepresented the first survey as measuring from the south. It actually prorated the block.
> Yes, it sounds more like a problem with the state of the evidence used to make the surveys. If there was a "brass disc" in the sidewalk, wouldn't you think there ought to be a record of where it was?
That is what I want to know. Looking at the R/S maps from the era around 1950; most of them are really subdivisions. Some are actual surveys of existing parcels. Under certain circumstances, of which I am not knowledgeable in, at that time a Final Map (Major Subdivision) was not required. An R/S could be filed then the Deeds were written from that.
I would not be surprised if there is a big Record of Survey in that block that resubdivided all of those subdivision lots. The County's GIS doesn't show it but maybe the County Surveyor's big wall maps would (those aren't on line as far as I can tell).
I am not an expert in L.A. County records; I've done a little here and there. The case says the garage was built in 1952 but the Deeds would be somewhat earlier than that, perhaps years. That would be a find, especially if it shows the brass disk the old-timer remembered.
> I am not an expert in L.A. County records; I've done a little here and there. The case says the garage was built in 1952 but the Deeds would be somewhat earlier than that, perhaps years. That would be a find, especially if it shows the brass disk the old-timer remembered.
The problem with so many boundary cases that courts decide is that the surveying facts are often to an outsider surprisingly thin and poorly developed.
"BRASS DISK"
Is that like the saying "grab for the brass ring" encouraging you to take some risk for great reward. Believe this goes back to a carousel ride with a stationary brass ring hanging close by, but not quite close enough, for the wooden horse riders to reach out and attempt to grab, thus receiving some award.
Today, that reward would most likely be $4.4 million after suing the carousel owner for injuries, suffering and loss of consortium.
It's interesting to me that neither of the modern surveys show any relation of their theoretical constructions to any pattern of old occupation that one would expect would tend to reflect where boundaries were marked at some early date.
Absolutely
That and the testimony of Sneed would be best evidence of the location of the boundary. Just because two surveys don't agree it doesn't mean the best evidence that was overlooked in favor of measurements is an agreed boundary. I hope Cali still allows best evidence to determine original boundaries.
The Court says, "don't speculate" but the surveys are pure speculation.
To be be clear, though, they didn't rule for the surveys. They ruled against it being an agreed boundary which is correct.
Exactly.
So I'm not the only one.
I would map all of the established occupation in the block. I have done this hundreds of times and always find a harmony with the original plat data for the great majority of evidence. Many times this gives me the search location for the original controlling plat mon/s to confirm where the plat lines and corners are. All that remains is evidence of boundaries that may exist outside the deeds that call for the plat.