Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Business, Finance & Legal › Surveyor disagreement
Surveyor disagreement
Posted by jph on August 15, 2022 at 6:29 pmJust wondering how some people here deal with situations when you disagree with another surveyor’s boundary opinion.
If you discuss it with the other guy, but he holds his ground on a monument he set, do you show your boundary with that monument as being in error. Or do you evaluate whether it matters all that much and just hold it and move on?
I hate to give in when I know I’m right. But I’d also hate to cause a lot uproar and conflict, and possible litigation, just to prove it.
james-fleming replied 1 year, 8 months ago 15 Members · 21 Replies- 21 Replies
Civil discussions presenting facts like pins found and honored, reference documents, and conclusions makes all the difference in understanding each other. I have disagreed with several surveyors over the years and have used this approach. All but once, I had information that the other person didn’t. The one time I didn’t have the extra pieces of evidence made me a humble individual real quick.
Good luck.
- Posted by: @kevin-hines
Civil discussions presenting facts like pins found and honored, reference documents, and conclusions makes all the difference in understanding each other. I have disagreed with several surveyors over the years and have used this approach. All but once, I had information that the other person didn’t. The one time I didn’t have the extra pieces of evidence made me a humble individual real quick.
Good luck.
Yes, this all the way. ^^^ I’ve convinced other surveyors that my determination is correct. I’ve been convinced that their boundaries were correct. It all depended on the evidence found. I was lucky on one job to coincidentally meet another surveyor on site who had surveyed the adjacent parcel, and he shared his findings and interpretation of the evidence with me. I was heading in the wrong direction until talking to him. Most of the pins my crew found had been recently set by the local hack. He pointed out the original pipes, a couple my crew had missed. It shifted my analysis significantly.
I have one case where we have pretty much the same evidence, but differ on our interpretation. I believe the pipe is an original monument, the other surveyor (definitely not a hack) believes it to be a goat stake. It’s been in limbo for a few years now, don’t know where it’s going to go, if anywhere.
Saw a survey today where the signing surveyor argued with his own prior survey. The old survey was pre-1989. The new one was finished earlier today. The difference was about two feet in a quarter mile. I’m not sure, but, I think what happened was that the monument at the East Quarter Corner somehow disappeared sometime after 1989. Surveyor from Timbuktu blew through in the early 2000’s and straight lined and half distanced from Southeast Corner to Northeast Corner, then filed corner records for that new location. Typical situation being that Mr. Timbuktu made no attempt to harmonize with surveys available to be researched. Not sure why today’s surveyor chose to disagree with his own prior work.
That last part is infuriating. It suggests that all who went before Mr. Timbuktu were jakelegs who didn’t know (defecatory matter) from Shinola. This (defecatory matter) is appearing more frequently by low bidders on wind energy, natural gas and pipeline work in our area. VERY SAD.
I agree with both you and Kevin. And I’ve notified the other surveyor. But I think that this is more of a situation where this other guy is the type to hold the plan as gospel, overlaying his fieldwork with monuments on top of it, trying to get the best fit by holding one monument and rotating in the direction of the other, and calling everything else as being off.
Meanwhile, I’m more along the lines of making the plan and deeds fit the evidence, not the other way around.
Just out of curiosity how large are the discrepancies, how large is the parcel, and what is the pacrel being surveyed for? ????
If the difference is material (if it matters) then I will have to overwhelm the prior survey with contrary evidence, explained on my survey. This takes time to investigate and explain and it is unfortunate for the client in most cases but sometimes it must be done.
If the discrepancy is small or if I am the only one who cares about it then I have a much simpler solution for that
@flga-2-2
Arrrgh, I answered and posted, but somehow I got logged out
Anyway again, client’s lot is 100′ front and rear, 200′ sidelines. Neighbor is 150′ sideline, and the new rebar is 0.8′ over the line between the two old iron pipes.
I’m finding out now that the survey is because they hate each other, and my client doesn’t trust the surveyor who set the new rebar. Something like that
Using the same evidence, I had a disagreement with a friend and good surveyor but we each still think the other is wrong. Another surveyor 20 years ago blew a quadrant in his calcs, which blew one retracement pin out six feet. Other surveyor believed it was relied on over a long period of time and thus became the line. We were both in agreement as to the location of the original lot lines though it was difficult to get the judge to understand that. I believe the case is currently on appeal and it started five years ago. We are still friends with a different application of the art of surveying in one instance.
- Posted by: @jph
and the new rebar is 0.8′ over the line between the two old iron pipes.
Put new shiny caps on all three, tell them you are charging $295/hr for consultation (and will place a lien against their title if they don’t pay up) then have them choose which corner is agreeable. ????
WWKD?
@flga-2-2
Yes, I know that 0.8′ isn’t much, and if it’d been an old rusty pipe instead, I’d have been thrilled, and gladly would have been ok with the minor kink in the line. Conversely, if there’d been nothing there, I’d have held the line between the two pipes, and been able to explain to the neighbor if questioned, why his rear line is only 99.2′ instead of 100′.
I just don’t understand why the other surveyor didn’t do that, though
I was hired to survey a parcel in an old unrecorded subdivision of the entire SW/4 of a section. The lots were 330′ wide and 2640′ long.
My client had a tattered and yellowed copy of the 1945 survey. The NE corner of my client’s property was the center of section. On this old survey it plainly showed (and stated) the center was set by occupying the south quarter corner and proceeding northerly at a right angle to the south line a distance of 2640′. The pin at the center of section was in place at a measured distance of 2639.8′. I didn’t care much for the surveyor’s field procedure in 1945, but it was the first corner established there and had been relied upon since 1945.
About a year later I get a call from another surveyor working in the NW/4. His newly calculated center of section missed the old pin there by thirty-something feet. I have no idea why, but he was stuck on his calc’d position with a severe case of cranio-rectal tunnel vision. We discussed the two surveys ad nauseam. He couldn’t understand why I would accept that old pin that was “so far off” in the face of the fact that I didn’t particularly like it’s position either.
I eventually emailed him several court cases that touched on similar conditions. I did this only if he promised me he would actually read them. Generally in OK none of the center corners were set at the time of the original survey. This has lead to a boat load of contradicting surveys concerning section center corners. I eventually got him to understand the importance of existing monuments and the importance of not only accepting their position, but also accepting any inherent error in their placement.
He still calls me from time to time to pick my brain. Disagreements can be a good thing.
Welcome to the surveying WTF? world. ????
A rural section, all lots 40+ acres. In 1989 a survey subdivided the north half of the section. He found the SW corner and NW corner but not the W1/4 corner. On the S1/4 corner he said he found an original BT and set a rebar/cap. He found a 1? IP at the SE corner, an iron pipe at the E1/4 corner and a stump hole at the NE corner.
In 2016 a survey found the 1989 distance on the W line is 20 feet too long so he reproportioned the W1/4 corner. I disagree, although it??s a blunder several Deed exchanges have occurred in the N1/2 in reliance on the 1989 survey so it shouldn??t be changed. We could be correcting things forever if we never accept that there is repose.
The S1/4 2016 doubts that 1989 found the Original so he SPd it and moved it considerably east to the straight line. I disagree, the BT is gone. 1989 said he found a stump of BT at the SW corner but there is a beautiful open blazed dead oak tree there. 1989??s notes are somewhat sparse. I think he confused the 2 corners and actually found a stump at the S1/4 and a tree at the SW corner. The S1/4 BT is in a stock pond graded about 2002. Furthermore I think evidence detailed on old surveys should be presumed accurate unless there is solid evidence refuting it.
The SE corner does not affect my survey but 2016 found the wrong sized pipe, probably an old fence post. The huge original BTs are there and alive, they swing out to a spot about 5 feet east which fits 1989??s data.
2016 surveyed in the south half and did lot line adjustments so I would hold his monuments for the south half only.
It is a sad, sad thing that so many surveyors feel that whatever they dream up must be correct. Numbers are merely numbers. Evidence outweighs numbers. One of my early surveys involved using a north quarter corner that was incredibly close to being one chain off from what the record indicated. It really stands out when the half mile from the north quarter corner to the northwest corner of the section is 132.15 feet longer than the half mile from the north quarter corner to the northeast corner of the section. It was within a couple tenths of being a straight line, too. If some (defecatory matter for brains) surveyor came along and tried to “correct” that corner, all HECK would break loose. Especially by the guy whose 100+ year-old house would be cut in two by said “correction”.
My default is to hold the monument.
If the disagreement is based on techniques how to set the monument I will likely defer to the set monument.
If I finally decide to not accept it, I will call the surveyor and have a chat about it. But, at that point I will want to have a very good reason, usually a found original monument or evidence of original positions that disputes the set one, or some strong evidence of a blunder.
Pulling a set monument at a lost corner is always an iffy thing to do.
I don’t want to have multiple monuments at any corner, it defeats the purpose of hiring a surveyor.
I had one of mine disputed and I finally told them they can only set theirs if they pull mine and bring it to me.
@mightymoe I believe you describe what is the best practice, to give a monument the benefit of the doubt, to not disregard monuments without a very good reason for doing so. If a monument has been in place for decades then it should not lightly be rejected because the corner must become finally settled and not continually readjusted. Even where a long established monument is founded in an error but if it would create more distress and confusion by disregarding it than it would to place it in the correct location then it should be left in repose.
It never fails to amaze me how many surveyors will proclaim a monument ‘wrong’ when it doesn’t fit their math perfectly and will then set their own monument in the ‘correct’ location and completely disregard the decades of acceptance by the property owners that have relied on the old monument.
About a decade ago I had a heated argument with another surveyor over a monument that I’d set marking a parcel corner and ROW where two old subdivisions met. He had come in from the adjacent subdivision and was subdividing a parcel in his old subdivision while I was working off of control is my old subdivision. He wouldn’t budge that my survey was somehow at fault for their being a kink in the ROW at the location where the two met. When I asked him how many corners he’d recovered in the subdivision I was working in, the answer was zero. He wanted to set one of his corners less than a foot away from mine, but the property owner had dug up around the corner I’d set and placed a 24′ CMP over it and filled it with concrete. Pincushion that.
Willy- Posted by: @williwaw
It never fails to amaze me how many surveyors will proclaim a monument ‘wrong’ when it doesn’t fit their math perfectly and will then set their own monument in the ‘correct’ location and completely disregard the decades of acceptance by the property owners that have relied on the old monument.
About a decade ago I had a heated argument with another surveyor over a monument that I’d set marking a parcel corner and ROW where two old subdivisions met. He had come in from the adjacent subdivision and was subdividing a parcel in his old subdivision while I was working off of control is my old subdivision. He wouldn’t budge that my survey was somehow at fault for their being a kink in the ROW at the location where the two met. When I asked him how many corners he’d recovered in the subdivision I was working in, the answer was zero. He wanted to set one of his corners less than a foot away from mine, but the property owner had dug up around the corner I’d set and placed a 24′ CMP over it and filled it with concrete. Pincushion that.
A tablet set in the concrete would be a efficient pincushion.
For some reason surveyors generally have a mysterious love affair with mathematically “straight” lines. The abhorrence of “kinks” founded on any general legal principle, nor do they create any practical difficulties for land owners. Pincushions on the other hand do.
Log in to reply.