We should strive with the following parameters:
1.) Where is RECORD TITLE? That can mean alot of retracement, digging, tie line, and research.
2.) WHERE are ALL the monuments, quasi monuments, and occupation lines?
3.) Now, we evaluate evidence. Where should we YIELD to the old markers? Where should we REJECT stuff? This is done with a VIEW of item 1 above, and with a view of making it BETTER not worse.
4.) When ALL above fails, we can do a community impact study. This means a VERY pragmatic approach, ignoring JR an SR rights. This puts occupation, and happy neighborhood into 1st place. We can do this, when we see that there will never be peace in the hood, with the application of 1 and 2.
So long as we STATE what we did, and are not hiding evidence, it can SERVE the needs of a given neighborhood.
This is launching out into a very shaky interpretation of the neighborhood. HOWEVER, at some point we MUST taper BACK into item one above. It is a DEVIATION from item one above. And, has to be done, with Number one above in mind.
Essentially, it is CREATING a USE based Torens Title system, within the a country, where Torens is not all that well known and used. Using the Surveyor's authority to Create it, because it is PRAGMATIC, Harmonious, and practical. I feel it cannot be ethically done, without considering Number one above, as the ORIGINAL intent foundation. Even though it DEVIATES from Item one above, and sometimes by considerable amounts.
Fact is, in Arkansas, USA, we are working with an AGING PLSS system, which has not been adequately maintained, perpetuated, and understood, and MANY of the old GLO corners are Lost, missing, and plumb forgotten.
So, go do "independent surveying", but NEVER forget that it was INTENDED to be tied directly to a HIGH pedigree Cadastre, and was to act in accord with that mind set.
I don't like to find a Non-Pedigreed survey marker, and yield to it, without KNOWING where it is, relative to a strict retracement of GLO. Only then, can we comprehend how big the deviations are. Unless we actually comprehend this difference, we are merely playing with a simple VOTE of the neighborhood folks, to use a given monument. At that point, we really don't need a surveyor any more. We only need to vote, and build monuments. And, sic the button pushers on the neighborhood.
Fact is, that the general public ASSUMES that we are surveying off of HIGH Pedigree corners. When, we are often not.
Nate
Thought this was gonna be about whether to pack heat when surveying among the crack houses.
FrozenNorth, post: 449704, member: 10219 wrote: Thought this was gonna be about whether to pack heat when surveying among the crack houses.
The drug dealer is always better armed than you...that's his job.
James Fleming, post: 449705, member: 136 wrote: The drug dealer is always better armed than you...that's his job.
Good point.
Nate The Surveyor, post: 449681, member: 291 wrote: Fact is, in Arkansas, USA, we are working with an AGING PLSS system, which has not been adequately maintained, perpetuated, and understood, and MANY of the old GLO corners are Lost, missing, and plumb forgotten.
That sounds like the parts of Alabama where I worked years ago. It's officially a PLSS state, but functionally more like metes and bounds. I can't count the number of recorded plats I've seen there that are tied to "Purported" or "Locally Accepted" perpetuations of section corners, but in the developed areas the originals are long gone.
In many "real messed up neighborhoods" a good quality thorough land survey will cost more than the value of the property you are surveying, and often times more than the client can afford to pay. Sometimes there might need to be less expensive resolutions to settle on the boundary that has kind of "ripened" over time. The surveyor can still have some value in that they can show the client and neighborhood what kind of mess they have gotten into and help with guiding them to a less-expensive remedy.
My opinion is that what people do or have done and accepted, especially for longer than 20 years carries the most weight, but there needs to be clear visible evidence. You also need to be within the states boundary law. Each state is a bit different, my state, Utah, has pretty clear law now but still mostly misunderstood. Record title says who owns it but my not ultimately define where the boundaries are, even if the math is perfect. What people have done and accepted over time and the law, that's where I think you would find the answer.
Clearing it up and getting to Utopia where the record title matches the physical reality on the ground, a challenge for sure. What landowners can do may be the only way to clear that all up. The surveyor can issue their opinion and try to lead landowners to a solution. The landowners can work it out or challenge the surveyors opinion in court. I try to make my opinions inline as much as possible with the law, record title is way down the list as the most controlling factor unless bare ground and people haven't done or accepted anything as a boundary.
