Recording Requirements for ALTA Surveys

[Sunburned_Surveyor]

When, if ever, is a surveyor required to record an ALTA survey in California?

When, if ever, would a surveyor be required to file a record of survey because of work performed or evidence discovered in an ALTA survey in California?

Citations to sections of state law/code or court cases as a basis of replies would be very appreciated.

I'm just curious how this SHOULD be handled in California, not how it MIGHT be handled by some firms.

Thanks for any information or references.

The Sunburned Surveyor

[Ian Wilson]

An ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey is NEVER recorded in California. It is not a recordable map, per se. On the other hand, the work performed for such a survey easily triggers the requirement for the filing of a Record of Survey. See §8762 of the PLS Act for the triggers.

Although there will be much dissent, the triggers are plain. §8762 (b) (4) states:

“The establishment of one or more points or lines not shown on any subdivision map, official map, or record of survey, the positions of which are not ascertainable from an inspection of the subdivision map, official map, or record of survey.”

This implies that, even if you don’t set a monument but determine where a line lies, as in establishing how far a building is from a property line during the performance of an ALTA survey, if the line is not shown on a record map, a Record of Survey is required.

§8762 (b) (5) states:

“The points or lines set during the performance of a field survey of any parcel described in any deed or other instrument of title recorded in the county recorder's office are not shown on any subdivision map, official map, or record of survey.”

This implies that if you set a monument, even an “Approximate Corner” hub, and the point is not shown on a record map, you must file a Record of Survey.

That’s what SHOULD be done.

Now, many argue that if they don’t actually set anything, they don’t have to file an RS.

When a court reviews a piece of legislation, they apply the principle that the wording of the statute is the best evidence of the intent of the legislators in their attempt to create law. Since both (4) and (5) are included in §8762 (b), it must be implied that the legislators wanted to make a distinction between SETTING points or lines and ESTABLISHING of points or lines. The difference between the two concepts is the difference between pounding a monument into the ground and merely showing the line on a map. Both situations are clearly covered under this section of the PLS Act.

The argument really boils down to dollars. It costs money to collect enough information to definitively locate the positions for lines and monuments, draft a map and process it through the county. Many do not want to add these costs to the cost of performing the work. They are afraid the client will balk at the cost.

On the other hand, the Record of Survey is a hell of a way of leaving footprints for Land Surveyors who follow after us. It’s also a hell of a way of providing service for our clients. If you think about the RS as being a single premium, front-load, insurance policy for the location of the boundary that’s good for the life of the parcel, then the RS becomes a hell of a deal.

Maybe it’s time to change this portion of the PLS Act. Maybe we need to make it a lot easier all around. Perhaps we could change the triggers so that if a Land Surveyor performs any of the functions as defined in §8726 and any of the lines of the subject parcel are not shown on a record map, the surveyor WILL file a Record of Survey.

Of course, we should tie the County Surveyor’s hands and reduce the checking requirements to bear minimum. That would reduce their costs for checking and make the RS a more palatable document. If we do that, though, we should consider the effects of Wheeler v County of San Bernardino and remove liability for the “correctness” of the boundary from the shoulders of the County Surveyor completely.

In order to make sure that SOMEONE can shoulder the liability, perhaps we should round out the “new §8762” with a requirement for a Land Surveyor filing an RS to show proof of current professional liability insurance in the amount of at least $500,000 or a $500,000 bond secured with the Secretary of State, just like we have to in order to drive a car.

This would help reduce the “interpretations” of the RS triggers, reduce the costs of checking the RS, remove the County Surveyor’s liability and place the liability firmly where it belongs. The property owners would certainly benefit; future Land Surveyors would certainly benefit.

My 2¢ worth………..

[Sunburned_Surveyor]

Ian,

Once again, you have answered my questions.

I was mostly interested in the second portion of your answer. The one where you describe what might trigger the RS requirements for an ALTA, even if a monument is merely "located" but not set.

I also think the law should more clearly spell that a record of survey is required even if a monument is not set.

Is there an court decision in California or another Western state in which an LS was held responsible for failing to record an RS when setting a "temporary" monument corner or locating a line in another way?

I will consider the state law you mentioned in this context and think carefully on what you said.

Thanks again,

The Sunburned Surveyor

[Jim Frame]

You might want to take a look at BPELS Policy Resolution 96-03, which deals with the matter. A copy of it can be found here:

http://members.dcn.org/jhframe/BPELS%20Policy%20Resolution%2096-03.pdf

Note that this, like all other Policy Resolutions, was formally withdrawn by BPELS in 1999 due to the effect of a 1996 California Supreme Court ruling that narrowed the circumstances in which an agency may issue opinions without formally adopting them as regulations. The Policy Resolutions were to be studied to determine which would be so adopted, but I believe this item fell off the agenda for lack of staff funding. Nevertheless, 96-03 provides valuable insight into BPELS thinking regarding §8762.

[Bob Hart]

File attached. Valuable information which may not be cited.
Bob

[Sunburned_Surveyor]

Thank you Bob, Jim, and Ian. You have provided the information I needed. I will take time to review it. I appreciate your responses.

The Sunburned Surveyor

[Gary O]

Ian,
I agree with you. Even though you're not SETTING any monuments you are establishing a fixed objest AS a monument. When you tie the foundation to a property corner isn't that foundation now a witness to to corner?

Like you, I feel very much in the minority when it comes to this subject.

[Chris Wickern]

If Ian put in his $0.02 worth, then my opinion can't be measured in monetary terms. I'm not licensed in Ca., yet.

I just don't understand this debate.

The LS Act doesn't seem to give the Surveyor options about this. It clearly states the licensed surveyor or engineer SHALL file a record of survey...

It seems to me that when surveyors start parsing words such as "shall" and "establish" the ones who ultimately suffer are our clients and the public.

[bruce hall]

Well, if the act read "....shall file with....a record of survey." (place a period after the word survey. No more words until we get to (c)) Then I guess the only parsing would be on the words preceeding "record of survey". This is great, I learned a new word today. It just goes to show ya somethin'. I don't know what it is yet, but I am sure someone out there will tell me.

Thinking more on this.... what COULD be done is delete 8762 (b)(1) through (5), replace "may" with "shall" in 8762 (a). Then what is there to parse. Oh I forgot, one would have to delete "except as provided in subdivision (b)" from 8762 (a).

Bruce Hall

[Chris Wickern]

Like I said, I'm hard headed.

Section 8765 of the LS Act states the exemptions from the REQUIREMENTS:

8765. Record of survey - exemptions
A record of survey is not required of any survey:
(a) When it has been made by a public officer in his or her official capacity ...
(b) Made by the United States Bureau of Land Management.
(c) When a map is in preparation for recording or shall have been recorded under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act.
(d) When the survey is a retracement of lines shown on a subdivision map, official map, or a record of survey, where no material discrepancies ... a “material discrepancy” is limited to a material discrepancy in the position of points or lines, or in dimensions.
(e) When the survey is a survey of a mobilehome park interior lot ...

The exemptions are a part of the law too.

[bruce hall]

Well, maybe 8765 ought to be deleted also. No Exceptions for anyone. In fact, some surveyors use 8765(d) to stake fence lines and block walls and foundations of buildings when retracing lots of subdivisions that have the exterior of the block monumented, the distances and angles fit okay around the block, no existing monuments are at the corners(is this physical change?), the surveyor does not set or reset the corners of the lot, but set stakes to build the fence, wall or building that are referenced to the lot line. That is a long sentence. I hope it made sense. Thank you for your comments. It can get really old talking to myself. Bruce Hall

[Ian Wilson]

I don’t think anyone would accuse me of advocating any interpretation of the PLS Act which would avoid the filing of a Record of Survey. However, I do not believe a Record of Survey is necessary for every survey.

If a record map exists that shows ALL of the CURRENT boundary lines of a parcel, there really is no need to file yet another map.

I would like to see the “triggers” made easier for some people to understand, though.

I agree that there should not be any exemptions for anyone regarding filing of Records of Survey. Why should a public officer or a BLM surveyor be exempt from filing a map (unless, of course, the BLM survey is not licensed in this or any other state…)?

If I’m making a survey for the purposes of filing a Final Map, I shouldn’t have to file a Record of Survey as well! (Unless the Final expires without being filed, of course)

[Chris Wickern]

Ian,

The LS Act provides the exemption for the BLM. My experience with the Federal Agencies is, they will exempt themselves from all requirements under the supremacy clause. This includes filing requirements, and licenseing requirements.

Federal authority to perform land surveying is a sore spot with me.

I'm not saying I agree with all aspects of the LS Act, but it doesn't seem to give the surveyor the option of ignoring sections they don't like.

Geez... We wondered away from when an ALTA is required to be recorded.

[Jim Frame]

Ian wrote:

If I’m making a survey for the purposes of filing a Final Map, I shouldn’t have to file a Record of Survey as well!

---------

Strictly speaking you don't, but there are often situation in which it makes sense to do so. Once you've completed the boundary survey of the exterior of the property to be subdivided, and have disclosed the boundary resolution to another party (e.g., your client or the local agency), you're obligated to comply with §8762. However, processing a final map can take many months, and sometimes well over a year goes by before the map gets filed.

If it goes over 90 days, §8762(d)(1) and (2) must be dealt with. Rather than waiting for the County Surveyor to request details of the survey and forcing other surveyors to reference an unrecorded map on their own surveys, it's sometimes better for all concerned to get a ROS filed right from the get-go.

[Ian Wilson]

Sorry, Jim, but on this one you and I disagree! The siutation you outline is specifically and purposefully addressed by §8765 (c). In fact, that scenario is EXACTLY why that section appears!

Although I am a staunch advocate of the RS and filing them, I do not see the need or benefit to my client to file an RS while I'm in the process of filing Tentatives and Finals. In Riverside County, the $500 deposit based fee and my drafting cost do NOT add any value to the property and just don't make sense.

[Gary O]

Ian and Jim,

Ian wrote: If a record map exists that shows ALL of the CURRENT boundary lines of a parcel, there really is no need to file yet another map.

I partially agree but most ALTA maps I've seen tie buildings, fences and other improvements to the boundary lines. These then become witness monuments and as such should be shown on a Record of Survey. This seems really obvious to me.

Jim, I'm not sure what good would come from filing a survey on work you're doing for a subdivision. As long as you file a letter with the County Surveyor (8762 d 1 ) you're in the clear.

[Peter Ehlert]

OK, Gary... I can bite my tongue no more.
When you say "...tie buildings, fences and other improvements to the boundary lines. These then become witness monuments..." you are absolutely dead wrong.

Those ties become witness monuments when I say they are.

When I establish reference monuments I do so with the aim of creating a way for that position to be reestablished from the reference position. I am Not doing that when I do topo and show an offset.

Peter

PS: it is great to see you here, I sure miss Sonoma County!

[Ian Wilson]

Gary:

Let’s take a simple scenario.

The intent of the original subdivider is to create a straight line from Point “A” to Point “B”. The buyer of the parcel builds a 10-story office building on the site. 10 years later, for the sale of the property, an ALTA is required. Every line on the original parcel is shown on a record map. All the monuments are in and there’s no ambiguity.

Surveyor “A” comes along to perform the ALTA. He shoots the buildings and prepares a map. He decides to file a Record of Survey showing the building’s relationship to the property lines.

A few years later, Surveyor “B” is asked to do a survey for the adjacent property. He finds the original monuments for the common line. He ties in the building. His offset measurements from the original line differ from Surveyor “A”s measurements.

Problem: are there now two angle points in the original line?

Change the scenario a bit and you’ll see where I’m coming from.

You do a boundary survey on a parcel described by aliquot description of sectionalized land. You find establish, accepted monuments at the Quarter Corner and Section Corner. You also find a 40 year-old record monument established for the 16th corner. The local property owners have all relied on the 16th corner to build their improvements. The line from the Quarter Corner through the 16th corner to the Section Corner is not a straight line. The accepted practice is to accept an angle point in the line.

Since you are asking me to accept the ALTA Surveyor’s designation of the building as a monument, why would this be treated any differently than the aliquot retracement? If you do, you really disregard the intent of the original subdivider and start buggering up lines on record maps.

In short, in my opinion, if the parcel lines are all shown on a single record map, there is no need to clutter the record with maps based on building ties. In this case, a Record of Survey would not add to the record but would actually DETRACT fro the record!

[Jim Frame]

Gary wrote:

Jim, I'm not sure what good would come from filing a survey on work you're doing for a subdivision. As long as you file a letter with the County Surveyor (8762 d 1 ) you're in the clear.

---------

I appreciate the fact that both §8762(d)(1) and §8765(c) allow a final map in preparation to excuse the surveyor from filing a ROS, and in most instances there's no problem.

However, given the delay between initial boundary survey and filing of the final map -- often denominated in years, not months -- you can have maps waiting for other maps to record, or maps dependent upon unrecorded information, or (worse yet) maps relying upon a different interpretation of the evidence from your own. A ROS filed at the outset of the tentative map process can eliminate these problems and help to ensure that all the surveyors are on the same page regarding the boundary determinations.

As an example, I have an upcoming project that will subdivide portions of a few lots in a town in which there have been virtually no recorded surveys since the town was established in 1864. I plan to perform a fairly extensive retracement of the block lines, going well beyond the vicinity of my project, and filing a ROS to document my work. Anyone following behind me will probably welcome having a recorded block line determination already in place, so I won't be too concerned if my Final Map takes three years to get filed.

[D Ryan]

Although I'm in the camp that agrees on leaning towards filing when in doubt rather than trying to weasel out of it, I'll respond to Ian's comment; "Why should a public officer or a BLM surveyor be exempt from filing a map (unless, of course, the BLM survey is not licensed in this or any other state…)?"

As a practical matter, consider the 50 states' laws a federal surveyor would have to comply with, unless of course that state has filing requirements at the local level, which increases exponentially the number of different filing regulations and standards they would have to adapt to. And in many cases, these guys aren't licensed in the state they're working in, so could not file a survey. I don't feel federal surveyors can be compared with your average private firm. They do have national standards for their work and mapping standards(field notes and plats) which are supplied to County Surveyors, whcih essentially gets them in a centralized public repository.

When the Headwaters Forest deal was made some years back, BLM inquired with the Humboldt County Surveyor's office regarding filing requirements. After receiving our checklist, and discussing the requirements of the PLS Act, and after getting assurances they could not be allowed a lesser or lower standard than anyone else, they backed out the RS scenario, and ended up simply referrring to their plat (a copy of which was filed at the County Surveyor's office) in the conveyance between the Feds and Pacific Lumber Company, essentially imparting constructive notice for the plat. Although I would have preferred they file a survey, I understood many of the reasons they didn't.

Wow, talk about getting further off subject, but such is the nature of this forum...