My survey career began in the metropolitan area of Denver, Co in 1971. The ALTA standards had been promulgated but were not yet in widespread use. At that time, there were two fairly common approaches to producing property surveys. I will describe the approaches using two fictional characters, Windshield Willie, and Fence Line Freddy.
Willie would drive to the property, sit looking through the windshield for a few minutes, then off to the County Clerk and Assessor’s office to collect whatever mapping was publicly available. Then Willie would prepare the survey work product based on his windshield observation and whatever public mapping he’d found.
Freddy took a different approach. He didn’t require existing mapping. Instead, Willie would set up equipment on the site and dutifully map the fences and any other improvements indicating occupation. Freddy would tie in a survey monument when it presented itself but didn’t bother spending much time searching for evidence of any description.
With Willie, record lines were property lines but for Freddy, occupation lines were property lines.
In the 1990’s I came to believe that there was an effective end to the Willie/Freddy approaches with the widespread use of ALTA/ACSM Standards. But recently I noticed that the old boys seem to have produced an ideological heir in their amateurish practice. I’ll call him Monument Mickey.
I closed my office in 2012 and now keep my hand in the game with odd assignments. I do not engage in much fieldwork currently, but I often work with drawings prepared by surveyor consultants. I have noted Mickey’s new approach with alarming frequency. It goes like this:
The title company provides Mickey with a wealth of record evidence which he makes use of to some limited degree. In fact, Mickey seems to have only a passing familiarity with ALTA requirements. Mickey’s primary concern is with mapping all the monuments on or near the site. Fences, walls, and other occupation lines get sparse attention. In fact, they may, or may not, be part of the survey. Mickey then draws lines between all the monuments. I mean all the monuments.
I routinely see ALTA surveys with subdivision boundaries platted as straight lines but depicted with angle points. Where are these new angle points? Wherever Mickey finds a monument.
If three pins are found along the rear property line then, lo and behold, there are now three angle points in a line that was platted as straight. A Right-of-way established at 60ft is depicted as varying, say 60.1ft or 59.9ft, based on property pins found along the line.
And the unforgivable example: aliquot lines are depicted with angle points based on property pins found along the line.
Now these are just my personal observations which may not be a fair characterization of the state of the survey profession generally. Malpractice exists in every profession. Surely the modern practitioners know better. But do they?
I applied for a license in a new state which required a four-hour exam as part of the reciprocity requirement. The experience was a wake-up call. Here’s what happened.
An exam question presented a trapezoidal property and asked for a metes-and-bounds description. All the dimensions were provided. The task was simply to write the legal description based on the information provided.
The property included a road right-of-way which was described, for some unknown reason, as being an easement (i.e., not in fee). The road easement was monumented at the intersection with both the east and west property lines with iron rods. There were no monuments on the road centerline i.e., the NE and NW property corners were unmonumented. (see sketch)
Under these circumstances, good practice would call for monumenting the property corners on the centerline and calling them in the legal description. However, good practice wasn’t part of the question. The assigned task was solely to write the legal description. The questions raised by the unusual formulation had to be ignored.
I wrote the legal calling straight lines connecting the four property corners. I called the adjoining properties and the road centerline. I ignored the iron rods set for the easement. The examiner deducted points for not calling the pins. I requested a review of that decision and in an unsigned letter a month later was informed:
“Although the examinee did call the adjoining properties and the centerline of the road … one point was deducted for not calling both of the iron rods on the right-of-way of the road. These monuments are important in controlling the lines … and should have been identified as controlling the location of those lines. The importance of the survey monument in defining boundaries is discussed in many survey textbooks, legislative statutes and in case law. State* Revised Statute 93.310 “Rules for construing description of real property” highlight the importance of the monuments.
(My emphasis)
*The name of the state is withheld
Anonymous asserts that the location of the monuments set for an easement/property line intersection controls the direction of the east and west lines and the length of the north line. That is ridiculous. In fact, the monument set for the easement/property line intersection doesn’t control anything. Not even the easement width.
The iron rods are indeed evidence and they should be evaluated in the full analysis of the survey. The rods may, or may not be, in the correct locations per the deed. That evaluation was not possible within the context of the information given.
Anonymous did not identify the “many survey textbooks … and case law” “defining boundaries” but did identify XRS 93.310 in support of the assertion. Only one of the six XRS 93.310 paragraphs mentions monuments:
(2) When permanent and visible or ascertained boundaries or monuments are inconsistent with the measurement, either of lines, angles or surfaces, the boundaries or monuments are paramount. (My emphasis)
It is quite true that a called monument is controlling over distance or direction. It’s also true that all monumented points are evidence. However, simply marking a location does not make the location authoritative. The statute cited is irrelevant. Anonymous clearly doesn’t understand the role of monuments in land surveying practice.
Anonymous references “many survey textbooks” as authority for this reasoning but, didn’t cite any examples. One textbook not cited, but should have been, is Brown, Robillard and Wilson, “Evidence and Procedures for Boundary Location,” 2nd Ed., John Wiley & Sons which states:
The call for a monument is a call for the spot occupied by the monument… (pg. 41)
Note that XRS 93.319 cites “boundaries or monuments.” There are three types of land survey monuments: natural, artificial and record (Brown pg. 11). In the call along “along the adjoining properties” to “the centerline of the road,” the adjoining property lines and the road centerline are record monuments.
The assertion that artificial monuments set along a line are controlling, in and of themselves, must be a quasi-religious tenet that the surveyor’s pin is some sort of holy relic.
When the state board requires basing professional practice on this “holy relic” tenet, it cannot be concluded with any confidence that it is generally understood that irrespective of found monuments; a) subdivision lines platted straight remain straight, b) rights-of-way remain at the width dedicated, and c) lines between aliquot corners are straight.
I was concerned during the exam that the question might be designed to test for the bogus “holy relic” approach. Unfortunately, my concern was justified. There were other, similar examples of amateurishness throughout the test regarding, for example, basis of bearing and certification which I won’t get into here—although they are interesting. However, I did fully address those issues in a seven-page letter sent to the board and individually to every registered land surveyor on the board.
I await their response.
The problem’s amateurish premises, the confident assertion of unnamed textbooks and the citation of an irrelevant statute is all evidence of an overwhelmed individual desperately trying to impress. In the bureaucratic age we find ourselves in, the rise of credentialed but uneducated authority has become all too common in all professions. Land surveying is not exempt.
Readers of the “American Surveyor” are aware of the concern for the future of professional land surveying. The average age of practitioners is rising to unsustainable heights as the young show a declining interest in the profession. My experience with the exam shows that the problem runs deeper than the inexpert land surveys crossing my desk.
It may that bright, young people aren’t interested in “dumbed down” land surveying because it has no interest—no challenge. If Mickey’s is now the standard of care, then the profession may be doomed. And regrettably, but, rightfully, so.
My guess is that Mickey and Anonymous are bright enough individuals possessed with many of the abilities and traits required for expert practice. What they’re missing is an awareness of the requirements of legal principles which make the land surveyor a professional and not just another button-pushing technician.
I’ve had the opportunity to practice this profession over the past five decades largely because of the lessons passed down by older surveyors—we used to call them they greybeards. Now I have the same responsibility. Professional land surveying, properly understood, is honorable, challenging and rewarding work. I owe it a lot. My hope is that raising awareness of basic principles of land survey practice will help revive interest in the profession. The only antidote is education.
It’s still up to us greybeards to correct and encourage the young.
James Jones is a licensed surveyor and engineer who lives in Washington. He previously wrote for the magazine here: https://bit.ly/4jn9oK8. He earned his PS in Colorado in 1982, and his PE, also in Colorado, in 1997.