7/27/2019 Fed Manual Relevant

1/2

>>By Steve Hansen, LS

hy would the various General LandOfce (GLO) and Bureau o LandManagement (BLM) Manual[s] oSurveying Instructionsbe relevant to thestate licensed land surveyor? What i thelands in a state were surveyed prior to

when even the frst ofcial ederal Manualwas introduced? Aterthe land passes rom ederal to private ownership, does state lawsolely control land surveys?

Lets use Alabama as an example. I am not licensed there, and

most o what I know about surveying there comes rom legalresearch. My feld experience in Alabama is limited to a BLMRetracement Seminar that I once attended. During this seminar,we recovered original evidence rom circa 1830s surveys bythe GLO, so I know that original evidence does exist in at leastparts o Alabama.

The 1973 Manualstates in 1-1, The Manual o SurveyingInstructions describes how cadastral surveys are made in conormance tostatutory law and its judicial interpretation. 1 TheManualis gener-ally binding or surveys adjoining ederal interest lands, including

Indian country, when the original survey was executed inconormance with the Manual, (i.e., an ofcial GLO/BLM survey).The private surveyor that ollows methodologies and proceduresound in the Manualwhen surveying lands that were originallysurveyed under the Public Land Surveying System (PLSS) hasfrm ooting should his survey ever be contested in a court o law.The Manualcannot provide an answer or every survey situation,but oers general guidance or a broad variety o issues.

Alabama is replete with PLSS case law that deers to ederallaw. For instance, Alabama courts have stated that The govern-

ment survey created sections and boundaries and did not merelyidentiy them. 2 They also say All disputes over the location o thelines o sections are controlled by the government survey and located byreerence to the original survey.3

In addition, while the boundary line between adjacent landowners may be fxed and changed by agreement or by adverse posses-sion, they cannot relocate a section line as surveyed by the Governmentsurveyors,4 and when the land is described by Governmentnumbers, the deed does not purport to convey an area outside o suchdescribed land.5

Why aFederal Surveying Manual

is Relevant to theStates

continued on page 63

Displayed with permission The American Surveyor September Copyright 2009 Cheves Media www.Amerisurv.com

7/27/2019 Fed Manual Relevant

2/2

The textbook Clark on Surveying andBoundariessays The Congress o the UnitedStates having provided a system or the surveyo the public lands, the boundaries and limitso sections and subdivisions thereo must bedetermined in conormity with the principleslaid down in Federal statutes. Errors o loca-tion, once established, cannot be corrected by thecourts or by a surveyor who is employed to locate

government corners or line, said the court.6

When lands in Alabama adjoin anoriginally-surveyed government-surveyedline, then the frst thing that the retracingsurveyor would need to do is reestablishthe original government survey. I owner-ship is not coincident with the governmentline, then State law remedies or ripenedunwritten rights exist. The originalgovernment line remains unchanged.[I] a party claims property by adverse

possession beyond a government survey line, the

government survey line does not change, but theboundary line between the landowners maybe changed or relocated so that the governmentsurvey line is no longer the boundary line.7

When one is tasked to perorm aresurvey o land described by the PLSS,then using ederal rules allows the surveyorto restore those lines back to their originallocation based upon the best availableevidence. The Manualpromulgates ederalsurveying and resurveying rules. Whywould any surveyor not want a standardset o survey rules to ollow or the PLSS?

The initial decision on how to complete aprivate boundary survey is up to the indi-vidual surveyor. I the decision is contested,then the courts are the decider. State courtswould deer to ederal law and procedureson PLSS issues, as applicable, and State lawwould control on other boundary issues,such as unwritten rights, etc.

I an Alabama surveyor is tasked tolocate an aliquot part description, then theoriginal lines need to be determined beorethe section can be properly subdivided.Our cases are clear that no agreement or act(e.g., adverse possession) o adjacent landown-

ers can relocate the section lines, or interiorsubdivision lines established by governmentsurvey, or they are certain in legal contempla-tion.8 Ater the original lines are restored,then the section would be subdividedby ederal rules going back to the Act oFebruary 11, 1805. (43 U.S.C. 752)

I an original government corner isdetermined to be lost, and proportionatemeasurement methods or restorationneed to be employed, then ederalresurvey rules would apply. It is apparentthat the trial judge and the surveyor, on whosesurvey the judge relied, applied to the situationa mathematical ormula or the ascertainment

o the lost corner, so that the question reallyis whether or not there was error in doingso. We fnd that such ormula under thecircumstances here disclosed is an established

principle o surveying. We quote as ollowsromClark on Surveying and Boundaries,section 349: When new measurements aremade on a single line to determine the posi-tion o a lost corner, it will almost invariablyhappen that such line overruns or alls shorto the distance given in the notes. When thisis the case, the surveyor should always fx the

point by proportional measurement on linesconorming to the original feld-notes. There

can be no departure rom this rule.9 Whywould a surveyor not want a standard andrepeatable procedure when dealing withproportionate measurement methods ocorner restoration?

From the previous citations romAlabama case law, it is clear that ederalsurveying regulations and procedures havea place in state surveying practices, whetheror not the original surveys were perormedprior to when the frst Manualwaspublished. Federal surveying and resurvey-ing rules do pertain sometimes, even aterland has passed into private ownership.

Whether or not the most currentManualis codifed into state law, itremains the single best text on PLSSmethodologies and procedures. It is theclosest thing that the aected PLSS stateshave to a uniorm national surveyingcode. The Manualremains relevant.

The Manual o Surveying Instructionsis

directed at ederal authority land survey-ors. But private land surveyors wouldbehoove the proession and their clientsby utilizing the principles and practicesound in the Manualwhen surveying inPLSS or Indian lands. I surveyors regardit as only a nice book on the shel, thenthey have not done their research.

An essential book or private surveyorsis the Restoration o Lost or ObliteratedCorners and Subdivision o Sectionscircular.The circular is an early GLO restatemento regulations governing resurveys and

subdivision o sections. Versions o thiscircular were published in 1883, 1896,1909, 1939, 1952, 1963 and 1974. TheManual[s] o Surveying Instructionswereprepared or the ederal surveyor, whilethese circulars were directed especiallytoward county and private surveyorsperorming resurveys in the PLSS.

Steve Hansen is the Chief CadastralSurveyor for the Bureau of LandManagement, Arizona. He is a regis-tered land surveyor in Arizona, Californiaand Colorado.

The Manual...describes how

cadastral surveysare made in

conformance tostatutory law

and its judicialinterpretation.

References:1. Manual o Surveying Instructions1973, U. S. Department o the Interior, Bureau o Land Management, sec. 1-1 at page 1.2. White v. Berrey, 266 Ala. 379, 96 So. 2d 725 (1957); Nolen v. Palmer, 24 Ala. 391 (1854); Walters v. Commons, 2 Port. 38 (Ala. 1835).3. Sims v. Sims, 273 Ala. 103, 134 So. 2d 757 (1961); Golden v. Rollins, 266 Ala. 640, 98 So. 2d 409 (1957).4. Dial v. Bond, 849 So. 2d 189 (2002).5. Alord v. Rodgers, 242 Ala. 370; 6 So. 2d 409 (1942).6. Clark on Surveying and Boundaries, 7th Edition, 1997, sec. 5.33, page 150, citingVaught v. McClymond, 115 Mont. 542, 155 P2d. 612 (1945).7. Nelson v. Garrard, 403 So.2d 230 (Ala. 1981).8.Guyse v. Chappel, 367 So. 2d 944 (1979)citingSims v. Sims, 273 Ala. 103, 134 So.2d 757 (1961); Upton v. Read, 256 Ala. 593, 56

So.2d 644 (1952); Alord v. Rodgers, 242 Ala. 370, 6 So.2d 409 (1942).9. McLaurine v. Knowles, 257 Ala. 8; 57 So. 2d 543 (1952).

Hansen, continued rom page 64

Displayed with permission The American Surveyor September Copyright 2009 Cheves Media www.Amerisurv.com