In an interesting discussion below ([msg=311121]see this thread[/msg]) someone opined that if you use COGO to calculate points on a line, then you are conducting a boundary survey.
I have heard similar points of view espoused in the past. If that is your definition I have some related questions.
Scenario #1. Your client owns a large farm. He wants to build a straight fence between a walnut tree on one side of a ridge to an oak tree on the other side of the ridge. You can stand on the top of the ridge and see both trees. You will need to use COGO to calculate some points on that line. Is that a boundary survey? Will the work have to comply with the rules that govern surveying in your jurisdiction? (In the area where I work that might mean a day's worth of additional work tying in to geodetic monuments.
Scenario #2. Your client with the large farm lives just across the state line. You aren't licensed in that state. He shows you a map that calls for the walnut tree and the oak tree to be property corners. That change anything?
Scenario #3. Your client with the large farm just across the state line neither shows you the plat nor tells you that he believes the trees are property corners. That change anything?
For what it's worth, Ive never thought that the use of tools commonly used by surveyors played a part in determining whether something was in fact land surveying.
Larry P
The tools used do not define it. The knowledge used does not define it. A key factor is the relationship between the person wanting something done, the person doing it, and all information provided by the former to the latter. Then a court can decide if it is boundary surveying, when push comes to shove.
Imagine this: You are hanging out around the pool at a buddy's house. His son-in-law is there also. Somewhere along in discussion he mentions that he needs to build a fence from that tree over there to that other tree down yonder, but he wants to try to build it straight. So he comes up with the following plan and you participate. Son-in-law stands by the tree down yonder. You stand by the tree over there. Your buddy gets a short piece of pipe and a hammer. He attempts to stand on a straight line connecting you to the son-in-law. He looks at you and you point thataway. He moves thataway. You point thataway again. He moves thataway again. You point back the otherway. He moves back the otherway a bit. You and son-in-law both wave your arms and yell out, "That's it."
Was that boundary surveying? Did your buddy tell you those two trees were boundary corners? Did he compensate you in any way (an extra six-pack to take home) for participating? Did he have reason to believe you have special knowledge about boundary surveying? Are you licensed?
Didactic ad nauseam
When the monuments and/or boundary of a property are being found, replaced, retraced, measured, flagged, painted, shown, referenced, staked, used for control, etc a boundary survey is being done.
When the boundary is used in any part of the surveying being done it is a boundary survey.
When you need to dig a hole that is centered 25ft from a boundary, that is boundary surveying.
The tools used does not matter, when your survey is based upon anything in relation to a boundary, yep, boundary surveying.
:bunny:
Disagree all you like. You are still wrong.
The primary charge of surveyors in all states, the reason surveyors are licensed in the first place, is to "protect the public" (i.e. innocent third parties whose property interests may be harmed by our surveying work. Herein lies the difference, as I see it, between staking out a fence which lies entirely within the bounds of a piece of property and attempting to stake out the boundary of the property. In the former instance, the client own the property on both side of the proposed fence. If an unlicensed individual does a poor job laying out a straight line, regardless of the method used (PS, total station and COGO, stakes and string, etc.), the only party who is aggrieved by this is the original client. At the bounds of the property, on the other hand, there is an adjoining property owner whose interests may be harmed if the boundary line is marked incorrectly. This is precisely why the various states have determined that the determination of boundaries a matter to be handled by trained professionals.
YMMV in various jurisdictions.
My own view is that determining where the corners are is land surveying. If a licensed surveyor has determined that the boundary is a straight line between this monument and that monument, then marking that straight line using any tools of your choice is NOT land surveying that requires a license.
There is nothing wrong with staking out a line between two points.
The problem comes due to the fact that to the general public, if a surveyor does it, and/or it looks like, it's a survey. That's the problem with the ILC things. A surveyor does them. They look like a survey. Therefore the general public thinks they are surveys. There are no disclaimers that can be put on the plat that will make the public think otherwise.
So, before you go out to "help someone" by staking a line for a fence, that might be near a property line, you better make sure you do it to the proper standard, because someone else will think you did.
You have left out one important part of the fence staking.
The beginning and end points may fall along a boundary the client shares with someone else.
That makes locating those two points boundary surveying.
:gammon:
I'm not disagreeing at all.
Your proposed scenario is not rendered with your opinion.
If some sort of learning lesson is presented then there are always variables and situations to consider. There is always the "it depends" factor too.
But I do know that I would never try to
prevent a landowner to exercising their rights.
The first thing ascertained by a surveyor in order not to make an a ss of him/her self would be the location of the boundary and then the intent.
As for everything else, boundary surveying is defined by statutes here.
My opinion, FWIW, is that if the work can be done properly with no knowledge of the boundary location, it is not boundary surveying. If you must know the location of the property line to do the work properly, it is boundary surveying.
As someone stated earlier, building a fence a certain distance from a property line would require knowing where that line is.
As professional surveyors, and nonprofessionals associated with surveying, we must also consider the public's view of our work. If we place stakes in the ground that the public will reasonably assume to be boundary markers, then we must perform the boundary surveying necessary to place them correctly. This requires licensure.
If we wish to stake a straight line between two points not related to a property line, and not reasonably assumed to be related to a property line, we are not performing a boundary survey. I don't believe this should require licensure, but some state Boards may disagree.
Even if the endpoints don't touch a boundary, then you have made a boundary determination to that effect. Seems to me it is still surveying with or without a license.
"Boundary survey" means a survey to: (a) Determine either the entire perimeter of a parcel or tract of land, or a portion of the perimeter of a parcel or tract of land; (b) Establish or reestablish a parcel or tract of land’s corner or monument; or (c) Divide or consolidate the parcels or tracts of land surveyed.
This is the definition as written in the Standards of Practice for Land Surveyors in Kentucky.Surveying Standards
A boundary survey is one which identifies the boundary between two estates. This activity done for a third party on land in which the Surveyor has no ownership interest is reserved to individuals licensed by the State.
1. No. Construction Staking is included within the definition of Land Surveying in California.
2. Yes.
3. No way to know.
If all you promised was teeth whitening, is it dentistry? Apparently not, according to the U.S. Supreme court.
So, if you promise it's not a survey that can be relied on for legal purposes, then it's not.
That doesn't mean it's necessarily a good idea to do it. I would say all three scenarios "could" be done without violating the law. But you would need to document the fact with the client on what it is and what it isn't. You need to make clear that only an opinion given by a surveyor licensed in the state in question has any legal standing on where the boundary is.
Probably some state boards are not going to agree with that approach, but seems to be what the court said. And I think it makes sense.
In the previous thread my comments were to try and help someone new to the profession stay out of trouble, and I don't take them back.
:good: :good: :good:
The latest controversy in the Medical Profession is Primary Care Physicians going to weekend seminars to learn how to do cosmetic procedures which are very lucrative. They aren't board certified Dermatologists or Cosmetic Surgeons but it isn't against the law, all they need is the license to practice medicine.
The Land Surveying profession heavily relies on weekend seminars :-).
Maybe I'm oversimplifying it. To me, if the public relies on or believes that anything that a person does, unlicensed or not, represents the boundary line of a tract of land, then it is surveying.
The problem with that is that I can't force someone to rely or believe in my opinion on a boundary. Likewise, I can't then force them to not rely or believe in it. So, all I can do is communicate clearly what standing I think it has in the eyes of the law in varying situations. Then they are free to act as they see fit whether it turns out to be beneficial to them or not.
I've had people attempt not to pay me because they don't like the opinion. Others take my client to court because another surveyor doesn't like my opinion. On the flip side, lenders, attorneys, and landowners who rely on ILC or plot plans for purposes I tell them not to. It goes on and on.
If you stake a straight line between two points it it's straight, and it served its purposes, and it doesn't encroach, there is not a problem because no one is upset, and chances are you'll get away with it if you're not licensed.
In the case of the guy on the other thread, I would say that the reasoning for him would be something like:
The guy wants to know where the line goes for some reason, even if it's not construction.
What if things went south. (the neighbor has is surveyed and it disagrees with that line for instance). Who do you think the first client is going to blame for his line being wrong?
Maybe the nonlicensed surveyor makes a mistake and wings out a point not on the line and it's relied on and later found out....who is the owner going to go after for the error. That guy below could probably go out and do the job and no one would ever know but he should think about what if something goes wrong. Who will take the blame. If it's him, he better have a license, or that could jeopardize his career.
> The problem with that is that I can't force someone to rely or believe in my opinion on a boundary. Likewise, I can't then force them to not rely or believe in it. So, all I can do is communicate clearly what standing I think it has in the eyes of the law in varying situations. Then they are free to act as they see fit whether it turns out to be beneficial to them or not.
>
> I've had people attempt not to pay me because they don't like the opinion. Others take my client to court because another surveyor doesn't like my opinion. On the flip side, lenders, attorneys, and landowners who rely on ILC or plot plans for purposes I tell them not to. It goes on and on.
Duane,
While I tend to agree with you, I believe at law the court would ask would a reasonable/average person tend to rely on what you've done. I don't think anyone can force someone's reliance as you've said, but if there's a reasonable certainty that they will rely on it as a boundary, then it's probably surveying.
