APPROXIMATE SURVEYS

[mlm]

I know a couple of surveyors in Oregon who perform "approximate" surveys for their clients upon request. They will mark approximate property lines and flag approximate corners. They will also locate monuments without verifying the monument's position or validity. One of these surveyors goes as far as to have his clients sign a waiver, apparently in an attempt to relieve himself of professional responsibility and liability. This "surveying" is done without benefit of a record of survey, because in Oregon, unless you set a monument, no ROS is required.

Anybody care to comment on this practice?

thanks,

mlm

[FOSTER]

MLM,

Those are called Mortgage Surveys back East.

Today's standard call is: A Drive By Survey.

[mlm]

Foster,

Are you refering to the usual mortgage inspection type survey where location of the existing dwelling is verified and existing encroachment issues are identified?

thank,

mlm

[FOSTER]

It depends on the requester (i.e. lender, private buyer, attorney, developer, etc). Each individual has their own importance to the level of survey work to be performed. The longer the time spent the more the cost of the survey. If the monuments were quickly paced off and located (orange paint marked, lath or flagging. A quick inspection for possible fence/building overlaps to the property line. A survey report may indicate a need for more extensive survey work or letter of verification to the documentation (usually a deed) provided. In the winter months, drive bys were most common (just visual inspection). Typical cost of mortgage survey: $200 to $400.

[landbutcher]

A few months back one of the freebie survey mags had a article about some form of approximate surveys and the Surveyor had his clients sign a disclaimer basicily releaving the Surveyor of any libility.
I emailed the author for a copy of the disclaimer but never received a reply.

[mlm]

I wonder if there any Engineers out there that are providing "approximate" engineering services, either with or without the benefit of a waiver?

What would they say to their clients? "Sure, I'll design your house, bridge, road, etc., but since you don't want to pay me very much, it's not my responsibility if I don't take the proper precautions and it falls/fails on you!"

I wonder what BORPELS would say to that!

mlm

[Jim Frame]

While I generally decline to perform "approximate" surveys, there is a situation that, in my opinion, sometimes warrants the use of a less-than-comprehensive boundary resolution: a lot line adjustment in which the desired lot configuration is dictated by the location of certain improvements.

As an example, I am currently working with a client who wants to reconfigure four existing rural lots into two parcels. In order to meet county zoning regulations, she must maintain at least a 20-foot setback from an existing barn.

Prior to contracting for this work, I explained the benefits of a thorough boundary survey, and emphasized the fact that the new parcel configuration cannot be monumented without one. She understood, but declined due to the additional fees involved.

A 2003 Record of Survey established the exterior lines of the section in which the old subdivision is located and to which it is tied, but did not disclose the prorations necessary to establish the lot lines. I recovered and tied in four or five of the ROS monuments, and they agreed well with the record. Based upon these ties, I calculated the prorated lot corner positions and searched for evidence. I came up empty.

There are additional ties that I would make if a comprehensive boundary survey were requested. Nevertheless, I believe that my calculated lot corner locations are probably accurate at the 0.1' level or better, and I am virtually certain that they are well within 1 foot. I then set the new lot line 21' from the barn.

I did not disclose the results of the boundary ties I made to my client, or to anyone else. I did use calculated, non-record distances in composing the new parcel descriptions, but qualified those calls to the lot lines.

In my opinion, a "real" boundary survey has not been completed, yet the results of the work I've done are close enough to suit the intended purpose. It's not an ideal solution from the standpoint of maintaining an accurate land title location infrastructure, but I believe it is allowed under the law.

[Bob Hart]

Jim Frame, said
"I then set the new lot line 21' from the barn"

You mean you established the new line 21 feet from the barn. If you truly set the new property corners you have triggered the PLSA, but you probably did that when you “established” a line not found on a recorded map.

Bob Hart

[Jim Frame]

I contend that I did not "establish" the line as anticipated by §8762(b)(4), since I did not perform the necessary field work to conclusively fix its position. The new line can only be established by a field determination of the location described in the documents supporting the Certificate of Compliance that will effect the LLA, and those documents qualify their dimensions to the original lot lines. As I stated earlier, I performed only enough field work to satisfy myself that I was within a foot, then gave myself a foot of wiggle room.

I acknowledge that this puts me closer to the edge of legislative intent than many, including myself, prefer to be. However, given the substantial additional cost of performing a comprehensive boundary survey - approximately 100%, or another $2,000 in this case - I don't blame my client for electing not to spring for something she perceives to be of little value.

Bob seems to think that I crossed the line. I value his opinion (we've never met, though I know him by reputation), but thus far I disagree with his interpretation. I'd be interested to learn what others think.

[Bob Hart]

Jim,

This is a quandry that need some help from the Leg committee.
If we are allowed to locate the improvement (fence or barn) closely enough to satisfy the client needs, what happens to the next person that "buys" this legal description? Do they eat the cost of the complete survey? Why shouldn't the party who wishes to change the legal, for any reason, be required to locate the revised legal on the ground? If this was law then no one could chose to do less than what is necessary. I usually limit my gray area Lot Line Adjustment legals to be governed by my ability to prepare a corner record for the parent parcel, allowing the owners to locate the adjusted line from the parent monumented lines. In the end, this gray area should be colored black and white and level the playing field. Your Section survey seemed to go beyond the corner record test.

Bob Hart

[Ian Wilson]

I agree with Mr. Hart. This is an area of the statutes that is far too grey for my comfort.

As you are aware, LLAs are “paper functions” that do not “require” a field survey and do not trigger the requirement for an RS.

In Jim’s case, the boundary has already been surveyed and shown on a record map. The location of a barn or any structures within the confines of the record boundary does not trigger an RS. The LLA, which moves an interior property line to a position “monumented” by the barn also do not trigger the RS requirement, in my opinion.

The additional fees for the additional field work and for preparation and filing of the record map are substantial. They are certainly not for the weak of heart or short of checkbook. On the other hand, as Bob points out, the fees will have to be borne by someone at some time. Once the LLA is approved and recorded, the next survey on the site who locates the line will have to file a Record of Survey at a minimum. I can assure that the fees at that time will not be less than they are now.

This is the major problem with LLAs. There is no requirement for permanent monuments to be placed at the extents of the manipulated lines. As I have mentioned before, a few counties use a “Non-conditional Parcel Map” to cover this situation. For fees similar to RS fees, this Parcel Map serves as constructive notice of the new positions for interior lines. It serves the public in a better way than a simple RS and a far better way than no record map.

It’s time to investigate this document and its potential use.

[Jim Frame]

For the record, I would welcome legislation requiring the monumentation of LLAs as a condition of approval. Until that becomes a reality, I feel obliged to advise my clients of their options under the law as I understand it.

[richard erskine]

Landbutcher:
If you go to the Alaska Society of Professional Land Surveyors
(ASPLS) you will find new standards for Mortage Surveys-has disclaimers you can adopt to your use

ric

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

to some degree or other.

[mlm]

Jim,

It appears that you are comfortable with the procedure you used to prepare the new descriptions and I'm assuming that you are taking full professional liability/responsibility for your actions. I'll leave the ROS debate for others.

In your situation, it doesn't appear that you need to fix the boundaries to the nearest 0.1' or so to accomplish your mission. You could even include the Barn in the legals as the controlling call to help ensure a minimum 20' setback.

Dave K,

I agree that our measurements are always an approximation of the true postion stated. Nobody measures exactly the same. That's why the "bounds" in a metes and bounds description are so important. However, if someone is to rely on measurements alone, then an order of accuracy must be stated or implied. I don't know what "approximate" means. Is it a foot or ten feet?

Here is what made me bring up the subject of approximate surveys:

I was recently presented with copies of correspondence between a local land surveyor and a landowner's attorney. The surveyor was contacted by a realtor to survey and mark a property line. Surveyor told the realtor it would be a couple thousand dollars to do a real survey, or as an option, the surveyor would perform an approximate survey for a a couple hundred dollars using a rag tape and a compass. Of course the realtor agreed to the cheaper option. After a new septic system was installed based on the newly surveyed line, the adjoiner (a big timber company) discovered that it was encroaching on their property. Said landowner was obviously very distressed about this and contacted his attorney. His attorney contacted the surveyor in an attempt to settle for damages. Surveyor said that he was not liable/responsible because what he did, as agreed on, was only approximate and that it did not constitute a survey of the property.

I guess the moral of this story is to remember why we are licensed in the first place--TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC WELFARE!
We are labeled as "professionals". Why should we pimp ourselves out for a couple hundred dollars just because some greedy realtor doesnt' want to pay us to do it right. What we need to remember, is that the "professional" services we provide usually affect other parties just as much as our clients. Therefore, we need to minimize the chances that our actions will cause problems in the future.

I'll get off my soapbox now.

Respectfully,

mlm

ps: Do you think the above realtor told her client that all he was getting was an approximation of the true boundary? That's another story.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

I had a similar request. I wrote a letter to the Broker stating that I could not do an "unrecorded" survey, granted it was common practice at one time (whether legal or not) but it certainly is not legal practice now. I also borrowed Ian Wilson's language by saying it's a benefit to the property owners to have the boundaries settled and recorded in the form of an ROS; it adds value to the property by notifying future generations of what I did today and why I did it. I said to do such a survey would cost X dollars plus County Surveyor fees. He said, OK do the Survey for X dollars (plus he agreed to pay the County Surveyor fees).

It's a 1953 subdivision Lot (8 acres) that was split in 1954. The whole subdivision actually looks pretty good with about 2 to 5 tenths of slop which I consider pretty good for a rural subdivision surveyed in the early 50s with transit and tape. The lot lines are occupied by fence lines with 8x8 corner posts and 4x4 fence posts that are close to record position. Those posts pretty much cover the slop in the subdivision. I'm filing an ROS because they want the split line marked (not on any map) and the original outide subdivision boundary corners are missing (4 "iron monuments"). Two destroyed by road construction, one missing for unknown reason, one, if it's there it's 6 feet down under a driveway that comes off a levee road. There are two iron monuments on another slightly older subdivision that my subdivision tied and some P-K nails shown on a Parcel Map from the 1980s that reference a now missing monument destroyed due to road construction.

[D Ryan]

MLM, that sounds like a pretty "weasley" situation. The term approximate survey makes me cringe. These are a disservice to the public (who I define as the unwitting third party who will have to deal with it at some future date), as well as to the client. I think what Jim Frame describes is another beast altogether (see similar discussion going on at this site). LLA's can trigger RS's, it's just that the agency can't require it as a condition of approval (unless it's in their local general plan, coastal plan, or building and zoning ordinances). The test I give these is, if a field survey was required to write the new description, a survey is triggered. Many LLA's can be done on paper, and yes, someone eventually has to pay for it when they want to see it on the ground, BUT isn't this the same as deferring improvements in a minor subdivision (let's say putting in sidewalks) until the eventual buyer applies for a building permit? Many LLA's can be sufficently described without benefit of a survey, but many cannot, and it seems those do trigger the RS. Sorry to continue getting this off track from the original thread.

[GregCVS]

I used to work for a firm whose policy was "If you use a measuring device to locate a boundary, you file a record." This policy made sense most of the time and made money for the company. The only “approximate surveys” we did were when we would walk the property with the owner and show them the monuments that were already set and of record. We made it clear that the property was not being surveyed and that we were simply showing the owner where the accepted corners were, which they should have already known. These were very rare for all of the reasons everyone has mentioned.

[GregCVS]

I used to work for a firm whose policy was "If you use a measuring device to locate a boundary, you file a record." This policy made sense most of the time and made money for the company. The only “approximate surveys” we did were when we would walk the property with the owner and show them the monuments that were already set and of record. We made it clear that the property was not being surveyed and that we were simply showing the owner where the accepted corners were, which they should have already known. These were very rare for all of the reasons everyone has mentioned.

[GregCVS]

I used to work for a firm whose policy was "If you use a measuring device to locate a boundary, you file a record." This policy made sense most of the time and made money for the company. The only “approximate surveys” we did were when we would walk the property with the owner and show them the monuments that were already set and of record. We made it clear that the property was not being surveyed and that we were simply showing the owner where the accepted corners were, which they should have already known. These were very rare for all of the reasons everyone has mentioned.

[GregCVS]

I used to work for a firm whose policy was "If you use a measuring device to locate a boundary, you file a record." This policy made sense most of the time and made money for the company. The only “approximate surveys” we did were when we would walk the property with the owner and show them the monuments that were already set and of record. We made it clear that the property was not being surveyed and that we were simply showing the owner where the accepted corners were, which they should have already known. These were very rare for all of the reasons everyone has mentioned.

[landbutcher]

I stated this in another thread but it applies here also

I ran across one instance of a LLA into graded "open space" was not monumentated and the new wall was nowhere near where it was supposed to be. And the currant, at the time of discovery, homeowners assn would not allow a new LLA. The new owner got a 50 year easement I have no idea as to the total cost, but at least three attornies were involved and it took almost 2 years to resolve. I think the 2nd previous homeowners who built the wall ate costs.

The above, to me, is a fine example of what can happen if a lot line is moved and not monumentated, or new legals are written without a boundary survey.

The problem with R-1 surveys is that the cost is prohibitave to most homeowners. Most calls I get are owners wanting to build a new fence or the neighbor rebuilt the fence in what they think is the wrong location and our fee far exceeds the cost of the fence. And since most are in dispute with the neighbor I will do everything I need to CMA, I don't need to pay legal fees and damages because I didn't dot a i.

Professionals such as Doctors and Lawyers never give options or offer to reduce fees or tests because they know what not dotting an i can do. If we are to consider ourselves professionals then we need to have the same mindset. My rule is this, "Why should I stick my license on the line by working in a gray area to save someone else money when I can CMA and increase my income at the same time."

CMA=cover my a...

[GregCVS]

If you have ever had to file an insurance claim related to your license, you will NEVER make that mistake again. If you are weighing the risks involved, contact your insurance provider or risk management advisor and get the whole scoop. After all, that's why you shell out that professional license insurance $$$$.

[mlm]

GCVS,

You mentioned locating accepted property corners yet you made it clear to the landowner that what you were doing was NOT a survey. How does one verify property corners without conducting a survey and performing measurements? Is a "survey" defined as a surveying activity that results in the filing of a map, or is there some other threshold that determines when a survey has actually been completed?

How did you determine that the corners were "accepted" by all of the affected parties?

Was your firm accepting liability/responsibility for this procedure?

just curious,

mlm

[GregCVS]

I was brand-new at that time and couldn't say. The "rule-of-thumb" at that time was if you use survey equipment (total station, tape, etc.), you were conducting a survey. Yes, it was a speculative procedure that I don't think I would engage in if I was a PLS. I think the idea behind it was to show where the monuments were located more than checking/challenging there location. In a couple of cases that I recall, someone else had surveyed the property (5 acre hillsides, etc.) but the owner didn't know where to look for the monuments. It was more a matter of using the mag locator and figuring out where to dig. Looking back, I see your point.