Record of Survey or Corner Record

[kwilson]

I have come across two recent requests for surveys of parcels that were created by deed. There is no Record of Survey that specifically was done for these parcels. But the parcels are "shown" on recorded maps adjacent to them and some or all of the bearings and distances of the parcels are shown on those recorded maps.

I am providing two examples. One is a parcel adjacent to a Parcel Map. It is to the west of Parcel 2 of 350 M 50 (attached). The lines of the parcel are not all shown with measured bearings and distances. The curved right of way can probably be calc'd from the map and the entire parcel is shown on the Parcel Map.

The second example is of a parcel where all of the lines of the parcel are shown on a Record of Survey done for the adjacent parcel.

In both cases, we must assume that the survey will not unearth any material discrepancies.

Corner Record or Record of Survey?

[SPMPLS]

Record of Survey, IMO. Perhaps Mr. Moore or Mr. Mathe could clear this question up for you?

[Tom Milo]

I would think a record of survey is required. The maps are not a survey of parcels you described. They are adjoiners only. Without additional research and a field survey, there may well be other discrepancies that are not shown these maps. If the deeds are a metes and bounds description and the property lines determined are not shown on an official map, a record of survey is required.

I would also think that the CS might kick these back if you tried to file these as a CR.

[jcoffey]

The standard is a little higher than for the property to be 'shown' on a Record of Survey

From the Code, a Record of Survey Shall be filed when the field survey results in:

"(4) 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."

In the first example, the southwesterly line and compound curve point cannot be ascertained from an inspection of the ROS. Is that really just 2 curves? Are those curves simply comtinuations of the curves on each end where labelled? What are the distances? I would say that's an ROS.

In the second example, even though there are calls to the rear corners, there are no attempts to verify the position and orientation of the rear line by a survey of the rear line itself. It's not as clear cut for me because there is a reference to another ROS Bk 199 of Maps Page 7 which we don't see. At the very least to set those rear corners, I don't think you'd be doing your client a good service by prodding out the lines from the ROS you showed us to re-establish the them, but I don't have all the information. Assuming the bk 199 ROS does you no additional good then I imagine you'll get different opinions about whether their depiction on that document constitutes 'can be ascertained'. I'd want to dig a little further before giving you my opinion.

[bruce hall]

I think a RS is required. I would be hard pressed to "sell" a CR for the surveys of the adjacent parcels. I'd have to think to much.

[Stephen Johnson]

This situation more or less SCREAMS RS to me.

[BoundaryMan]

Only you can answer that question, Mr. Wilson.
This is because if you are surveying your clients’ deed lines (metes & bounds in this case), then, RS is required. But if you are retracing lines shown on said RS Maps (or subdivision maps) and your field surveys show no material discrepancy, you may qualify for CR. For me, I always survey client’s deed lines (show it on contract) as it protects me as land surveyor. Remember, there are differences between property lines & property deed lines.

My 1 penny worth.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

I agree with Coffey.

Both of those require a new R/S.

I think the one on the left definitely requires it due to the lack of data.

The one on the right shows data for the two corners but there is no indication of what controls that line. Therefore I think more work is required to definitely establish that line and it requires an R/S.

[kwilson]

Thanl you for your responses and opinions. This will provide me with solid basis to respond to my clients. I have three clients right now who refuse to pay the checking and recording fee for their RS because "they didn't ask for that" (it was clearly stated in contract), "their architect said they didn't need that", and other excuses. I am forced to sue them for the fees.

[land butcher]

This is not meant to be a "told you so" but when I research job and see, like on your maps, that a R/S will be triggered I immediately contact the client and tell him to refer to my contract and the additional fee for a R/S is xxxxxx and a new contract has to be signed before any additional work is done.

You did include the possibility of a R/S in your contract which is good.

I would also write a letter to the architect and ask him what his LS number is, and if he doesn't have one he is to cease and desist giving LS legal info to clients, and notify client's that he is not legally knowledgeable of LS laws, or the State board will be notified.

[BoundaryMan]

Land Butcher,
I like your reply. We land surveyors never tell the architects how to design buildings. So, architects shall stop telling PLS how to do land surveying.

[land butcher]

I just didn't get a topo survey of a portion of a multimillion dollar house that will have wings added into the existing patio/hardscape area.
I requested a appt to do a walk thru before submitting my bid as that is the only way to determine how extensive the topo will be.
The architect seemed to think it would not even take 1/2 q

[land butcher]

I just didn't get a topo survey of a portion of a multimillion dollar house that will have wings added into the existing patio/hardscape area.
I requested a appt to do a walk thru before submitting my bid as that is the only way to determine how extensive the topo will be.
The architect seemed to think it would not even take 1/2 a day.

I guess he didn't understand my concern for a demo contractor, who I am sure walked the site before bidding, finding items not on the survey and hitting me up for a extra.

Before me the architect had talked to a "surveyor" who could not certify his topo map. I guess having a licensed surveyor as cheap insurance was still not worth the price I never gave him. But since architects can do topo's.......

[kwilson]

My client agreed to pay for the Record of Survey and gave us the job. I did give him a $100 discount though to ease his pain ($628 fee in Santa Clara County).

By the way, the biggest problem is not the architects, its the few land surveyors who cut corners. And it's not the people on this forum and certainly not the ones who responded to this post.

[LS 4722]

Originally Posted by kwilson

..... One is a parcel adjacent to a Parcel Map. It is to the west of Parcel 2 of 350 M 50 (attached). The lines of the parcel are not all shown with measured bearings and distances. The curved right of way can probably be calc'd from the map and the entire parcel is shown on the Parcel Map.

This one is an 'iffy'. If you were dealing with LA County RS Division I think a CR would suffice seeing that the missing dimensions of the deed are along a dedicated right of way. Depending on how anal your CS department is, you may have to file an overkill RS.

Originally Posted by kwilson

..... The second example is of a parcel where all of the lines of the parcel are shown on a Record of Survey done for the adjacent parcel.

This would be a CR no matter what county in California you have to submit to. That is, if the deed is clean with no ambiguities in the language.

[land butcher]

By the way, the biggest problem is not the architects, its the few land surveyors who cut corners. And it's not the people on this forum and certainly not the ones who responded to this post.

That's been my complaint for years, but both times what the board wanted me to do was illegal or at least unethical. But I disagree with you about architects, I have had 3 or 4 request a quote then tell me the surveyors they use never file a map of any kind. And they did not pass along any names.

[7702]

but both times what the board wanted me to do was illegal or at least unethical.

O.k. I'll bite. What did the Board want you to do?

[land butcher]

Originally Posted by 7702

O.k. I'll bite. What did the Board want you to do?

PM sent.............................................. .........

[LS 4722]

Originally Posted by kwilson

One is a parcel adjacent to a Parcel Map. It is to the west of Parcel 2 of 350 M 50 (attached). The lines of the parcel are not all shown with measured bearings and distances. The curved right of way can probably be calc'd from the map and the entire parcel is shown on the Parcel Map.

Previously I said that this was an 'iffy' situation because the remainder of the deed is along a dedicated right of way that is not dimensioned.

After thinking it over, I would say that a CR would suffice if there are no 'major' differences in your deed to what is in the field.

If I am wrong on this next statement about how the deed and the R/W join, please feel free to correct me...

You have a deed that begins at point X and closes at point X. That deed "should" have a closing call to that R/W line. Then it should run along the R/W line to a point where the deed becomes a separate instrument again.

You are surveying two parcels. The deed and the R/W. So to take care of the missing dimensions along the R/W line, just survey the street and file a CR.

I kinda feel sorry for you guys that do not work with Los Angeles County Survey for RS and CR.