Alaska Land Surveyor (AKLS) Exam common mistakes
Alaska Land Surveyor (AKLS) Exam · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When a boundary calls conflict, the candidate averages or 'splits the difference' between conflicting distances or bearings to produce a tidy closure instead of applying a hierarchy of evidence and resolving the conflict by specific reasoning.
Candidates treat boundary retracement as a math exercise where a better closure means a better answer, and they have not internalized that the record controls and that an unresolved conflict must be explained, not smoothed over.
What to do instead
Before computing, write out the calls in priority order and state which call governs each conflict (monument over distance, distance over bearing, natural monument over artificial, etc.), then document the reasoning in the answer. Practice with conflicting record plats where the correct output is a written rationale, not a balanced figure.
The candidate treats a found monument as controlling without checking whether it is the original corner, a later replacement, or a trespass monument, accepting the first iron pin found at the computed position.
Field convenience and the desire to 'find something' bias candidates toward accepting any monument, and they skip the evidence tests (age, bearing tree ties, accessories, position relative to other evidence) that establish authenticity.
What to do instead
Build a monument-evaluation checklist into every retracement answer: provenance, physical character, accessory evidence, agreement with the record, and relationship to other corners. State explicitly why a found monument is accepted or rejected before using it to control the boundary.
The candidate answers Alaska-specific boundary questions using generic lower-48 rules, ignoring that Alaska has its own statutory framework for surveys, plats, and recording, and its own history of federal cadastral surveys and Native allotments.
Most study material and prior experience come from other states, and candidates assume boundary law is uniform, so they never look up the Alaska statutes and regulations that actually govern the question.
What to do instead
Work through the Alaska statutes and regulations on surveying, platting, and recording until you can cite the controlling provision for each topic. For every practice question, ask 'which Alaska authority applies?' before answering, and keep a one-page map of which statute governs which domain.
On public land survey questions, the candidate applies standard section-subdivision rules mechanically without checking whether the township is regular, whether the section is a fractional section on a boundary, or whether special Alaska survey instructions change the procedure.
Candidates memorize the regular-section diagram and never practice the irregular cases (fractional lots, meander lines, correction lines, lotted sections) where the standard rules do not apply directly.
What to do instead
Drill the irregular cases explicitly: fractional sections along township boundaries, sections containing meanderable water, and sections affected by correction lines. For each, write the governing rule and the resulting lotting before solving the numeric question.
The candidate computes coordinates in a projected system without accounting for the difference between ground distance and grid distance, reporting a ground-measured boundary as if it were grid, or vice versa, without a scale-factor discussion.
Software handles the projection silently, so candidates never see the scale factor, and they conflate the measured distance on the ground with the coordinate difference in the projection.
What to do instead
For any coordinate-geometry problem, state the projection, the combined scale factor, and whether the answer is ground or grid. Practice converting a measured baseline to grid and back, and always label units and reference frame in the final answer.
The candidate accepts a GNSS-derived position as boundary-quality evidence without evaluating the observation method, occupation time, baseline length, or whether the accuracy claimed is appropriate to the boundary being set.
Modern receivers report impressive-looking precision, and candidates confuse precision with accuracy and with legal sufficiency for a boundary corner.
What to do instead
Attach an accuracy budget to every GNSS answer: method (static, RTK, network RTK), occupation and redundancy, baseline length, and the resulting positional uncertainty compared with the tolerance the boundary requires. State explicitly whether the method supports the use intended.
The candidate describes field procedures at the level of 'set up and shoot' without specifying instrument checks, redundant observations, closure requirements, or the error budget that makes the measurement defensible.
Candidates learn procedures as a sequence of button presses and never connect each step to the error it controls, so they omit the checks that the exam is actually testing.
What to do instead
For each procedure, memorize the error it controls and the check that detects it (collimation check, horizon closure, redundant ties, repeat observations). Answer procedure questions by naming the check and the tolerance, not just the steps.
The candidate treats a subdivision or plat question as a geometry problem and ignores the statutory requirements for plat content, approvals, dedications, and recording that determine whether the plat is legally effective.
Engineers and surveyors focus on the layout and assume the legal formalities are clerical, so they miss questions about what must appear on the plat and who must approve it before recording.
What to do instead
Maintain a checklist of required plat elements and approval sequence under Alaska law, and run every subdivision question through it. If a plat lacks a required element or approval, say so and identify the consequence before discussing geometry.
The candidate answers an ethics or professional-practice question by choosing the option that serves the client's stated goal, rather than the option that complies with the licensee's duty to the public and the profession.
Candidates read ethics questions as customer-service questions and pick the accommodating answer, forgetting that the statutory duty runs to public safety and to the integrity of the record.
What to do instead
For every ethics item, identify the duty owed and to whom, then eliminate any option that compromises the record, conceals an error, or defers to client pressure. Practice with scenarios where the correct answer disappoints the client.
The candidate researches a boundary question by searching for a convenient record and stops at the first document found, without establishing the chain of title, the survey history, or whether the record is the controlling one.
Search tools return something quickly, and candidates treat any located document as authoritative rather than establishing completeness and priority of the record.
What to do instead
Use a fixed research protocol: identify the parcel, trace the chain of title, list all surveys of record affecting it, and establish which instrument controls. In answers, state what was searched and why the cited record is the controlling one.