fattiretom
Just curious. Can you set an original monument on a senior line? If the only thing that holds is the senior line then isn't it impossible to set a monument on it that would meet the definition of an original (one that would be held)? How could it be?
You can set a monument but it would not be original to that line. They can be original to a line intersecting but they won't control the back line in question. Call the monument on range of the intersecting line if its over the back line or on line if it's before the back line.
So under that theory it can never be marked with certainty. Is that what society wants and needs, perpetual fine tuning to achieve some impossible perfection?
Sure it can...if you find the original monuments as stated in the example you can set something on that line with reasonable care. If the deed calls for a straight line between two monuments with no other evidence, then it's a straight line that can easily be established from the recovered monuments. In the example the newer monuments were up to feet over the line...not set with proper care. They are not original to that line and do not control if you can find the original ones.
If a monument is a hundredth or ten off a line I will often call it on line. You don't need to have a specific number...it's situation dependent (for me anyways).
So much for all that nerdy stuff. The real answer is in the law and establishment of land boundaries. You can't do that with a calculator and precision measurement. There are other things that need to be considered before it reduces to a math problem with only one answer.
Exactly. It's mostly case law. Look at all the evidence...including the deeds, the distances, the maps, the monuments, testimony, everything. We always reach a point where we have to make a decision with what we have.
Of course this is only one situation...we know that the original monuments were recovered. If one or both were missing or uncalled it can and probably does change everything. I'm actually working on a project just like this now but there are no calls in the deeds going back about 150 years, only a tall uncalled loose pipe in the vicinity of where I think the corner might possibly maybe have once existed... Pulling my hair out trying to re-establish the back line. Going to look for wire in tree's tomorrow.
fattiretom
> Going to look for wire in tree's tomorrow.
:good:
Retrace the Original boundary LINE.
Since this is only hypothetical...let's suppose the north tract was split from the original in 1888. Compass and chain survey setting stones at the 'corners' but blazes and hacks along the line trees...16 chains over the ridge and through the swamp. Makes a map...straight line between stones. Adjoiners are happy and can 'see' the line...straight per the deed and straight in their minds.
Owner to the south hires surveyor to subdivide his land in 1902. This surveyor knows how to retrace a line...finds the stones, blazes, hacks (and other foot prints) of the original boundary line...and sets his 'irons' along this line at 200 foot intervals as best as his new transit and steel tape could measure. Makes a map showing the 'lots'...the boundary line is straight per deed, plat, and in the owner's mind.
Owner of one of the 'lots' hires a surveyor in 2013...GPS...EDM...better and better at measuring...but worse and worse at finding the original boundary line.
DDSM:beer:
Keith
I like Jeff Lucas's suggestion better every day.
If the Surveyor is not going to survey the boundaries of the subject property then for Heaven's sakes don't label the resultant product "BOUNDARY SURVEY." Call it something else.
Dave,
JB penned an excellent post about boundary lines and property lines and is a keeper.
I have not read anything better than his explanation on an arguable point.
This business of two lines in the section, one being the real true, really true, and really really true, section subdivision lines as protracted and those other property lines is what I am talking about.
Bogus!
Keith
Dan
From all the foregoing posts, it is clear that some understand land surveying and some do not!
Keith
Dave,
Can we agree that land title (contractual evidence of ownership or conversely, not the ownership) and the boundary lines (established by a land surveyor which may not agree with contractual/title ownership) may not always be coincident? Think about a hiatus/gap on the ground, how are gaps created and/or how do gaps exist?
For the heck of it, look up the word “land” in Black’s Law Dictionary.
As surveyors we understand the corners are not the same as monuments, even though most people (including surveyors and courts) use them interchangeably. Equally, land title is not always coincident with ownership (property) and/or evidenced boundaries.
Riddle me this, is the limiting lines of an easement a boundary line or a property line? Why or why not?
Unrelated to the discussion above, referencing a previous post:
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 8726
(c) Locates, relocates, establishes, reestablishes, or retraces any property line or boundary of any parcel of land, right-of-way, easement, or alignment of those lines or boundaries.
(e) By the use of the principles of land surveying determines the position for any monument or reference point which marks a property line, boundary, or corner, or sets, resets, or replaces any monument or reference point.
8762:
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), after making a field survey in conformity with the practice of land surveying, the licensed land surveyor or licensed civil engineer shall file with the county surveyor in the county in which the field survey was made a record of the survey relating to land boundaries or property lines, if the field survey discloses any of the following:
Personally, I believe the distinction in California statutes was intentional. Ever wonder why the reference to boundary lines and property lines is separated by the word “or”? Our Legislature relies on the Office of Legislative Counsel which vets very specific language introduced into legislative bills. I do not think they would allow two words that mean the same thing into a statute, more certainly not separated by the word “or” in mulitple instances.
Thoughts?
For what it is worth,
DWoolley
Dan
> From all the foregoing posts, it is clear that some understand land surveying and some do not!
>
> Keith
Really?
Who doesn't?
Who's the enemy?
Does there have to be one?
Don
Dave,
Ok, I'll bite. What are the statutory (or judicial) definitions of 1) property line, and 2) boundary line as defined in California?
Dave,
"Personally, I believe the distinction in California statutes was intentional. Ever wonder why the reference to boundary lines and property lines is separated by the word “or”? Our Legislature relies on the Office of Legislative Counsel which vets very specific language introduced into legislative bills. I do not think they would allow two words that mean the same thing into a statute, more certainly not separated by the word “or” in mulitple instances.
Thoughts?
Yeah, here's a thought.
It's verbiage, Binge.
Think of the phrase "remise, release and forever quitclaim."
It's legalese, Dude.
Can you dig it?
Don
Ronald Reagan...
Apropos to nothing...
I came across Ronald Reagan in the correspondence files today. In the early 1970s he signed an order to close hunting, trapping and fishing in State Forests. There is only a photocopy in there, not the original.
These are our Lands files. There is a lot of good stuff in there; explains a lot of things.
That is the interesting thing about working for a land owning government agency; we have field notes, calculations and correspondence that goes back decades. A lot of it is not really boundary related but there is a lot of useful information, for example I know they considered a certain piece of evidence but they didn't put it on the map they filed. That is just an example. I have a pile of notes where they were doing compass and chain surveys trying to verify topo calls. The R/S might only say "fits topography."
Dave,
I don't understand why there is so much resistance to simply doing our professional duty; that is to survey the physical locations of the boundaries. No other profession can do it. I have never seen a Judge out there doing Surveys, they expect that we are doing it. The Attorneys don't want to get their wingtips muddy, for crying out loud.
The professional politics behind not doing our duty is extremely powerful I guess and the Courts are slowly eroding our basic principles of boundary law because they are being mislead by Land Surveyors, no one else, Land Surveyors.
Boundary: 1. A natural or artificial separation that delineates the confines of real property. Black's Law Dictionary 8th Edition
Property Line: OOPS, not in there.
The Courts, Judges, Justices, Legislature, Attorneys, and so on are not infallible. If they were we wouldn't need Appellate Courts and the Supreme Court would never change pre-existing common law. The old joke about Attorneys is if you present a fact set to one of them the first question they will ask is, "which side am I on?"
When it comes to boundaries the Land Surveying profession should grow up and accept its responsibility; that is to be the adult supervision for the other professions on an equal footing. Quit kissing engineer and lawyer blanks.
DWoolley
No wonder there are lots of earth quakes in California. When the physical reality must bend to the words on paper (gap opens up because a surveyor visited) great amounts of energy and destruction must be released.
Do you really believe that your regulating the professions statutes grant surveyors the right to establish boundaries and over rule constitutional rights of landowners. Why do you even need courts when you have surveyors with the ultimate power to establish boundaries, Terminus in actuality? Need a boundary dispute resolved just contact a surveyor, the profession given the rights by the states professional regulation statutes to adjudicate boundaries.
Dan
> Who doesn't?
> Don
I don't. I understand some things, but a lot less than I did 30 years ago. (like I said, in a few years though....) 😉
adamsurveyor
Land Surveying is both 'looking through a scope' and looking at the evidence. Given your line of reasoning, a land surveyor is not at all responsible for the measurements he or his 'technicians' make. That idea does not fly.
Any state that I am aware of has designated standards for measurements that have to be met. Why? 1. Because being able to reasonable accurately make ones measurements is a portion of a professional land surveyor's duties. 2. Because too many people were satisfied with a 1 in 100 closure and setting pins feet off of a line that they were claiming to be on.
You can try and relegate the more technical aspect of the profession to the realm of the para-professional. But a professional land surveyor has to know how to make (or make sure to have) accurate and precise measurements in order to properly evaluate a project. Otherwise, you are not even looking at the proper puzzle pieces.
Jon
Your statement: Land Surveying is both 'looking through a scope' and looking at the evidence. Given your line of reasoning, a land surveyor is not at all responsible for the measurements he or his 'technicians' make. That idea does not fly.
Not sure how you would come to the conclusion that I said that a land surveyor is not at all responsible for the measurements?
Obviously, the land surveyor is responsible for all actions taken by himself and/or his/her crew members.
But the most important part of what a land surveyor must do is the legal part where he/she knows what to accept as evidence of the line that he/she is attempting to locate.
In my opinion, measurements are way down the list of duties of a land surveyor's responsibilities.
But, I read here daily that measurements are supreme!
That idea does not fly!
Keith
