Why include record of past lines on new plat?

Probably many ways to keep the clutter down, line tables for one. We are required to place record Bearing and Distances on all of our boundary work. Seldom does that requirement, by State Statute, cause much of a problem that can't be dealt with in some manner. Placing the record on the drawing does require looking at the record to obtain the data, that is just one part of the needed research.
jud

I sometimes include a reference to recorded documents in a table or note...

Most of the maps I see around here don't have record bearings and distances. I'm guessing many surveyors just ignore stupid rules.

That is likely because round these parts most deeds don't have bearings or distances!

Required in Nebraska.

I like having the original calls on the plat. It is the calls that you are retracing. You are looking for the exact same line that originally created the boundary you are retracing. Those calls are an intrinsic part of the description of that parcel you are trying to retrace. You show what you measured, and what the original call was. If they are not substantially the same, you need to also have enough information on your plat that would show why it might differ.

Another thought on how the original calls might be of value: A parcel of land is created to meet certain minimum requirements, including acreage that was in place at the time it was created. Let's say a covenant or rule of some sort says that all parcels must be at least 1.0 acre. Let's say that the subdivision of the parent parcel was done by adequate means and standards of the day, and the subdividing surveyor created lots that were 208.75' square to meet the minimum standards, creating lots that are 1.000(4) acres. You do a resurvey and show meas. and rec.. You measure 208.7 X 208.6 feet on each side and calculate a 0.9994 ac parcel......oops, it doesn't meet standards. One argument you can show is that it was a legal minimum-standard size by it's "legal" description. (the description used to transfer the property). Your survey only shows that your measurements are substantially the same within an acceptable margin of error. You are also showing that the original area is 1.000acres within an error margin of +/- 0.001 acres. (oh, and yes, for us, that it well within a tolerance of 1.0 acres (but I made that up, the tolerance could be 1.000 acres. I don't know)

Maybe not the best example in the world, but showing the dimensions at the time of the creation of the boundary you are surveying I see as just having numerous advantages. It also give the client a perspective that no, it isn't all just the precise exact values on their deed. That it isn't a manufactured lot to the nearest 1/4". That yes, things can vary on the ground even with high-value equipment.

My thought is this, do what your state requires but if they do not require both then I see no reason to show record, particularly when the record is as poor as you find here. If I was in NYC, I would probably need to.

I will never understand those kind of statutes. I mean, I don't even have to visit the site to prepare a map that says my measurements will return something slightly or grossly different. Anyone can look at the record and see what it says. I thought I was being hired for an opinion of where the boundary is. I'm not a record keeper to list all previous reportings of numbers in the record. Who writes these things anyway? What possible purpose can it serve to present conflicts where none exist? By putting these on the map I think we just fuel dispute and court action. When we put a deed reference on the map it means we analyzed it and gave it its due weight. Do we also need to put on the map everything else that was called for or not called for or implied or shown on some other map or in every deed in the chain of title or claimed via testimony by everyone that ever said anything about the boundaries?

I know you have to do it if it is law; but what the heck were they thinking? This is like an attorney being forced to present the opposing side case, or a judge giving a verdict of no decision. Merely presenting evidence that appears to conflict with the decision is simply stirring up trouble. People generally don't understand the laws of boundary determination, that's why they hire a surveyor. To point out all the conflicting evidence seems to destroy the purpose of hiring an expert to resolve the ambiguity.

If the statute required an explanation of why the numbers are different, then I can go along, but that would have to be billed into the price as I would normally bill it later as court preparation fees.

Where do you stop?

Many times I have encountered a section line running from a section corner to a specific quarter corner than may be involved in 15 previous surveys. Plus the 40 chains listed in the government field notes. So what if that line has already been measured 16 times. It is my job to feel comfortable with how my measurement compares to those shown in the 16 previous surveys involving that line. It would be asinine to try to show all 16 different record measurements with an indicator as to which measurement goes with which surveyor in which year. The one exception being listing the government field note measurement for a non-standard line.

> What possible purpose can it serve to present conflicts where none exist? By putting these on the map I think we just fuel dispute and court action.

:good:

Wittgenstein wrote that muddled language is the cause of philosophical indecisiveness and ambiguity. The same goes for the language of mapping when trying to express boundary information graphically.

Posted from 30,000 feet on the way to Tortola 🙂 🙂 🙂

Where do you stop?

exactly, its like rewriting deeds over and over. If the deed doesn't reflect whats on the ground, rewrite but otherwise it should be left alone.

Where do you stop?

It's done because lawyers start foaming at the mouth if you "break the chain of title". Thus the requirement to show survey vs deed in the majority of state minimum technical standards.

I would counter that there is no need to show AM, just show record.

> I sometimes include a reference to recorded documents in a table or note...

I hear you there....

I call out the subject deed reference in the "narrative"/"Surveyors Report". Then note the record document used, and held, for the bearing and distance along the line resolved and used for the basis of bearings.

Each additional line resolved (as explained in the narrative/report) I show the
measured, appropriate record, and maybe deed reference, and that's it.

If there are multiple records used for the entire boundary, I make note of that in the narrative/report. Show a list of maps, and documents used, titled on the face of the drawing as "Record data" as a "quick reference" for the map, without having to slog through the narrative/report to see what document was used to resolve which line.

If difficult resolution. I'll do a list of "Record maps" and "Recorded documents" listing as a reference.

The easier it is for they layman to read and understand, the more they think they got what they paid for.

It's usually the happy client who opens their wallet first 🙂