Future of the Record of Survey

[Jim Frame]

Douglas Hamilton wrote:

"...a government agency is only obligated to check the map for standard mapping notations. And to insure the map is legible and has the appropriate statements."

In a perfect world -- that mythical place in which all professional licensees conform to the standard of practice in every instance -- even the minimal level of checking described above would be superfluous. In the real world, however, the public agency map checking function serves as the last line of defense against record maps that are technically deficient in presentation and/or represent negligent or incompetent surveys. This is the rationale behind Section 8766, which provides that "[n]othing in this section shall limit the county surveyor from including notes expressing opinions regarding the record of survey, or the methods or procedures utilized or employed in the performance of the survey".

The Subdivision Map Act is less specific in this regard, but an argument can be made that the intent of Section 664429(a), which provides for examination of final maps by the County Surveyor or City Engineer, is to be informed by Section 8766.

[bruce hall]

The county surveyor is to check the map according to the black characters in section 8766. It's the law as it's written. It is great to have a north arrow, basis of bearings, bearings and distances on lines of figures that close, the legal of the property being surveyed, the date of the survey, all the monuments that were found or set and the physical characteristics therof, and the adjoining parcels shown. I like all this stuff. It helps me use your map and your survey. Believe it or not, at one time, maps didn't have all this stuff. Some did. Others maps were lacking which really made it tough on the surveyor retracing a survey from a map that didn't have all the items shown in section 8764. It can be tough enough to do a survey without having a lousy map to boot. I like the county surveyor checking my map using the black letters in section 8766. Of course, I want to use my definition(interpretation) of these black characters, not his. Bruce Hall

[landbutcher]

As I might have stated previously, I see no libility on the Gov agency.
If there was why didn't the cities and counties get sued over the condo construction defect issues.
After all the builder pays big fees for inspection and one of the major construction defects was missing fire blocks- how could that be missed during framing inspection-or maybe building inspectors are exNFL referees.

It is my understanding that the responsibility lies
with the Land Surveyor to file a Record of Survey.
A judgment call only a qualified professional can make.

If this is the case, then all is well in this mythical
place we all live in. (Money Land)

I have worked in a number of Surveying Offices and
have witnessed a lot of different judgment calls in
regards to filling a Record of Survey and every other
kind of map.

In some cases there would be an indecisive call on whether
to file a Record of Survey based on the clients needs. The
client only wants his property line staked so he can erect a
fence. In this case, some will ask that a Record of Survey
will need to be filed under the PLS Act 8762 (5). Although
not all field Surveys need to be filed as a Record of Survey
as specified in 8762 (a). A Record of Survey will not need to
be filed, just as long as a Subdivision Map, Official Map, and
Record Map has been filed and there are no material
discrepancies, as stated in 8765 (d).

Since no two surveys are alike, a Record of Survey will
naturally be called for in almost all cases, to include
the staking of a fence. Since the Surveyor will need to establish,
boundary lines and tie monuments, then calculate the location of
the property lines.

I do understand the client's needs as well as anybody else. He/she
only wants a simple solution to a simple problem, in order to keep
the cost minimal. Are we not also inclined to protect the public? Yes.
Financially??

I do believe, it is in the best interest of all, to revamp the
current requirements of a Record of Survey. To include some of
the small projects that is requested by the public. They are the
ones we are trying to protect, right?

[D Ryan]

This is starting to get a little off the subject, but your references to the various sub-sections of 8762(PLS Act) brings to mind a recent gripe of mine. I notice that the 2003 version of the PLS Act renumbered/relettered this section. I know I've spent 20 years+ becoming familiar with these sections and put a lot of it to memory. Now seomone had the bright idea of revamping it. This may seem a little petty, but the renumbering of sections of law should always be avoided. Where was the CLSA legislative review committee? Many local ordinances refer to sections of the PLS Act, as well as various publications, texts, and other sections of the PLS Act itself. Look at 8764(g) which refers to 8762(a)to(e), which is now incorrect. Someone blew it. It should be put back like it was.

[bruce hall]

In response to Douglas Hamilton's last post stating in part.."it is in the best interest of all to revamp the the current requirements of a Record of Survey to include some of the the small projects that are requested by the public." I don't necessarily think so. We have a vehicle for that, the Corner Record. I file corner records on "small projects" where the land owner just "wants to build a fence". When everything fits together nicely in the field, no problems, maybe just a few missing monuments(read physical change), I am not required by law to file a ROS. The mandatory filing of a ROS is for surveys that disclose PROBLEMS. There may be other reasons also, but I believe this to be the primary one.
I get surveys like this, there's a problem right here on Elm Street, and I had better file of record of the problem. I know he just "wants to build a fence" but there's a problem out here. The filing of the ROS is what I am licensed to do. The requirements of Section 8762 are not the problem. One excuse for not filing may be the cost to check the ROS in some counties. Another is that there are a lot of surveyors not setting tags, leaving no tracks, and no one complains. Pick the excuse du jour.
Section 8762 has been pretty much the same, as I remember, since the mid-seventies and maybe earlier. I think it's fine, pretty much, just as it is written. And I don't remember when this ROS checking fee came into being, probably in the mid-seventies, but I just can't place the time, cause we don't have them here in OC.
Here's another item. The Orange County Surveyor told our local chapter back in 1982 or 1984 or sometime around then that all he would require was a "stick figure" showing the lot with the circles at the corners. He wanted records, and he wanted our chapters endorsement of the corner record "amendment" to the PLSA(back then it was the LSA). Although a stick figure would show "the precise location of the corners" (the monuments are at the corners of the lot and the lot is 100.01' long by 55.02'wide) try reading that into section 8765(d). I've tried this and it doesn't work. To many people reading the white part of the page.

[Jim Langone RLS PE]

The more posts I read, the sadder I get.

Since I left CA., about 11-12 years ago, I have been deferring to your standards and "ways" of doing things as being better.

Sounds as if things are, at least on the way to, falling apart.

Arguing about when a plat (of some sort) has to be filed?
What's to argue about?
You CAN file an R/S anytime you want to and
MUST FILE an R/S when 1) the boundary you are doing does not already exist on a record map or 2) when your survey discloses information that will (significantly) impact the "record".

If your boundary shows up on a record map (already) and you don't find anything significantly out of whack then a Corner Record should be filed.

What's to understand?

I will allow TWO...repeat...TWO (Possible) exceptions to this.
1) if the survey in question, was done prior to 1982 (implementation of the CR) or
2) MAPPED monumentation is used for "Construction" staking.**

**Clarification...IF you do that "fence layout" and use monumentation that DOES NOT show up on a record map or CR, or in anyway generate a "controlling position" (as in calculate a missing corner), then mapping IS required.

As far as some of the other things mentioned such as Not Tagging Set Corners or Setting Untagged RP's to "positions"...well... seems to me that, IF there's a WILL there's a way to find out who's doing it and report them.

[bruce hall]

You explained that very well Jim. Thank you. Bruce Hall

Bruce Hall & Jim Langone

I would like to thank both of you for your explanations. I appreciate your time and effort.

It clears up a lot of dought that i have had about our profession(even though i am not a PLS). I wish more would try to read and thourhgly understand the PLS Act

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

the Public Agency PLS (representing the County Surveyor) can review the boundary resolution and have an opinion which the Private PLS doesn't have to agree with but the Public Agency PLS may place a note on the map.

I'm amazed this thread is still going. I think I touched a subject we care a lot about.

I believe the City of Oakland has required lot surveys on all building permit applications since before dirt. Not a bad idea. My Dad (a PE) remembers working for an LS in the early 50s who's main thrust of business was performing required lot surveys in the City of Oakland.