Time for Board to enforce California Law 8762?
I am a young surveyor, so I know this is a conversation that has gone on for a long time before me - but the California code section 8762, in regards to when a Record of Survey Map is required, is quite a frustrating code section for me on a lot of accounts.
Many surveyors I know, even respected ones, don't file Record of Survey maps when they are required to. Some out of laziness, for sure. Some out of project oversight. Some because they want to save the client money. I'm not advocating for trying to get out of filing a record of survey, but it seems to me either the law needs to change, or the enforcement needs to change.
I don't see the law changing, to be sure, but what about the enforcement? I'm not much into government oversight over private matters, but if we are going to have the law, it has to be enforced. To me, you either have the wild wild west of unrecorded maps with no filing law, or you keep the law and have it be a hefty fine for when you're caught breaking it. Especially on the more obvious/clear ones like no record of survey filed for a Deeded lot. Why not have hefty fines so that everyone is playing by the same rules?
But as a young surveyor I find myself in a difficult spot to navigate through CA law. Deeded lot - ok, Record of Survey. Mapped lot - no record of survey unless I find a material discrepancy. I can't know if their is a material discrepancy unless I survey it; and if I survey it and find it, they say I have to file a map. So now I'm telling my clients it could be a simple, affordable survey OR it could be a 5,000 survey recorded with the County. That is quite a potential cost. I honestly just don't see how we are serving the public or our businesses unless something changes.
Why can't there be something that makes more sense for all parties - something where there is some skin in the game for the surveyor. If the surveyor does the work and finds the discrepancy, then he notifies the client of the cost - if the client doesn't want to pay for it, then the surveyor can't provide his work and get paid. This way, at least the Client knows "this will be a Record of Survey" for sure, and alleviates the surveyor from filing a map if the client doesn't want to do it. Not sure if this makes sense.
Has the California Board investigated any surveyor for not complying with this Law?
Has the California Board investigated any surveyor for not complying with this Law?
Many times. And it has levied substantial sanctions (fines and/or limitation on or loss of license) many times. Unfortunately, there are more violators than there are Board funds to enforce.
One problem in California is the ridiculously high fees for ROS. Requiring recorded surveys is common sense. It's good for the proffesion and good for the public, but states with only a nominal recording fee ($20) to cover recording costs have it right. That way the extra work and cost when a material discrepancy are found is negligible, removing the incentives to either ignore or avoid rhe requirment.
@jim-frame Do you think Cities and Counties should be involved in requiring ROS when, say, improvement plans are submitted with boundary lines on a deeded lot, for example? To me, that seems like the only way solve the problem-as much as I don??t like even more requirements coming from public entities.
Do you think Cities and Counties should be involved in requiring ROS when, say, improvement plans are submitted with boundary lines on a deeded lot, for example?
In an ideal world, sure. But local agencies, especially the small ones, don't have staff with enough expertise and budget to enforce state law. I've been battling my home town DPW for years trying to get them to pay attention ??8771 (monument preservation) *before* construction starts, with very spotty results. Even when they make an attempt at identifying monuments imperiled by an upcoming project, most of the time the assigned staffer doesn't have enough (or any!) surveying experience to know where to look, so monuments get knocked out and the surveying community only finds out about it when they go looking for a monument they need only to find a spiffy new handicap ramp where that old nail and tag used to be.
Expecting local agency staff to identify ??8762 issues is a bridge too far except in the largest jurisdictions, if you ask me.
@jim-frame Do you think Cities and Counties should be involved in requiring ROS when, say, improvement plans are submitted with boundary lines on a deeded lot, for example? To me, that seems like the only way solve the problem-as much as I don??t like even more requirements coming from public entities.
Ok, so this wasn't addressed to me but as a County Surveyor, yes the should be. Hold their feet to the fire. That's the only way to affect change.
Hold their feet to the fire. That's the only way to affect change.
I don't disagree, but it means that private practitioners become the enforcement mechanism (the holders-of-feet-to-fire). We have to get along with the staffers whose behavior we're trying to change, and that can get tricky if you get a rep as a pain in the rear. I'm not optimistic that this can be a successful model.
I think I'm probably persona non grata with my County Recorder after siccing the County Counsel on him. I sure don't want to burn my bridges with the local DPW, with which I have professional services agreement.
@jim-frame Yes I mean I agree that private practitioners can only try to persuade - not enforce. It seems to me the board isn't or can't (with their manpower) enforce the law. If it does, the fees aren't high enough to dissuade surveyors from not preparing ROS maps when they should. That leaves Cities and Counties to try to require the maps at, for example, the permitting phase.
