AL Land Surveyor common mistakes
AL Land Surveyor · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating a retracement as a resurvey: setting new monuments at record distances from a found corner instead of first exhausting the search for the original monument and then holding it as controlling.
Candidates carry over a construction mindset where the computed position controls, and they under-weight the hierarchy of evidence (original monuments > natural monuments > artificial monuments > courses and distances > area).
What to do instead
Before computing anything, write an evidence hierarchy checklist and document the monument search (probable positions, physical traces, accessory evidence). Only after the original corner is proven lost do you proportion or re-establish, and you state the basis in the notes.
Applying single-proportionate measurement to a lost corner on a line with multiple original corners and then also using it to fix adjoining lines, rather than proportioning only between the nearest undisturbed original corners and treating each line independently.
Proportioning is memorized as a formula without the rule that it applies between the two nearest existing original corners, and candidates forget that interior lost corners are set by proportionate distance along the line, not by a global adjustment of the whole boundary.
What to do instead
Practice a lost-corner workflow: identify nearest existing original corners on the line, compute the record ratio, apply only along that segment, and separately evaluate each boundary line. Verify with an independent check (e.g., closing the figure against record area) and explain the choice in the report.
Ignoring or misapplying the order of calls when a deed has conflicting elements (e.g., distance conflicts with an adjoiner's deed and a called monument), and resolving the conflict by whichever element is easiest to compute.
Candidates learn the hierarchy as a list to recite but do not practice applying it to messy fact patterns where monuments are ambiguous, calls are inconsistent, or the called monument is a non-monument like a road centerline.
What to do instead
Work through conflict drills where each element is varied, and write the resolution rule you are applying plus the evidence. Where a call is ambiguous, identify the least ambiguous controlling call and note the ambiguity rather than silently choosing.
Laying out subdivision lots by scaling from the plat (or by holding the plat's bearings and distances from an assumed origin) without establishing and checking the controlling boundary and block corners first, then discovering the lots do not close to the plat.
Candidates treat the plat as a coordinate list rather than a legal instrument tied to the boundary, and they skip the step of reconciling the plat to the parent tract and to found monuments.
What to do instead
Adopt a sequence: retrace the parent boundary and block corners, compute a best-fit transformation of plat coordinates to ground, check residuals, then set lot corners. Report any plat misclosure or boundary discrepancy before staking lots.
Failing to check that the sum of lot areas, lot widths at the frontage, and curve data on the plat are internally consistent, and not checking that lot lines are perpendicular or radial to the street as the plat depicts.
Time pressure pushes candidates to compute only the lot they are asked about; they do not perform the closure/area check or the geometric check that the plat's own notes imply.
What to do instead
Always run a three-part check: total area versus parent tract, frontage widths versus record, and geometric consistency (radial lot lines on curves, right angles on straight frontage). Do the check before finalizing any lot.
Confusing the nature of an easement with ownership of the fee, and assuming an easement strip cannot be used for anything else or that a right-of-way shown on a plat conveys fee title.
Candidates conflate easement, right-of-way, and fee ownership, and they do not distinguish an easement appurtenant from one in gross or a prescriptive easement from a dedicated public way.
What to do instead
Build a comparison table (fee vs. easement, appurtenant vs. in gross, express vs. prescriptive vs. dedication) and, for every problem, state who holds what interest and what the easement permits. Read the instrument language rather than assuming standard breadth.
Mixing geodetic and ground coordinates without documenting the transformation: reporting State Plane coordinates as if they were ground distances, or ignoring scale factor and convergence when comparing to record ground values.
Candidates learn the existence of scale factor and convergence but do not practice the combined factor workflow, and software output hides whether coordinates are grid or ground.
What to do instead
For every project, state the coordinate system, epoch, and whether values are grid or ground. Compute combined factor (grid scale times elevation factor) explicitly, apply convergence to bearings, and show the transformation in the report.
Treating a topographic survey as a spot-shot exercise: insufficient vertical control, no check on the benchmark, and contours or breaklines that do not reflect actual drainage and grade changes.
Candidates focus on horizontal accuracy and point count, and they do not tie vertical work to a checked benchmark or verify that surface modeling follows breaklines and flow paths.
What to do instead
Establish and close a vertical circuit to a known benchmark, record the closure, and set breaklines along pavement edges, ditches, and drainageways. Compare generated contours against field-observed flow and spot elevations before delivering the map.
Staking construction layout from an unchecked control point or without a redundant check shot, and using a single setup or backsight without verifying the instrument setup and prism constants.
Candidates treat the total station output as truth and skip the routine checks (backsight check, known-point check, prism constant, level bubble, temperature/pressure) that catch systematic error.
What to do instead
Institute a fixed routine: check instrument settings, occupy and backsight known points, take a check shot on a third known point, and set a tolerance (e.g., stated in the project spec) to accept or reject the setup. Document each check.
Misapplying significant figures and error propagation: reporting coordinates or areas to more precision than the measurements support, and adding or averaging measurements without accounting for independent versus correlated errors.
Candidates are comfortable with formulas but not with the concept of precision versus accuracy, and they treat a computed value's decimals as meaningful precision.
What to do instead
Carry full precision in computation, then round the final answer to a defensible precision based on the weakest measurement. Use standard error propagation (sum of squares for independent errors) and state assumptions about correlation.
Answering legal-ethics items by personal preference rather than by the statutory or board rule: e.g., not recognizing when a survey constitutes the practice of land surveying, or failing to identify a conflict of interest or a duty to report a boundary discrepancy.
Candidates study ethics as general professionalism rather than as specific statutory duties, and they do not connect the Alabama licensing statute and board rules to concrete scenarios.
What to do instead
Study the statute and board rules as a checklist of duties (competence, records, seals, reporting, conflicts), and for each practice question identify the specific rule or statute that governs, not just the general principle.
Missing Alabama-specific requirements: continuing education hours, seal and signature rules, recordkeeping and map filing, and the scope of work that requires a licensed surveyor, answered from general memory rather than the current rule.
Candidates rely on general surveying knowledge and other states' rules, and Alabama's specific numbers and procedures are easy to confuse or forget.
What to do instead
Build a one-page Alabama rule sheet (CE hours and cycle, seal/signature, record retention, plat filing, boundary/ALTA requirements) from the current statute and board rules, and review it weekly. Verify any number you are unsure of rather than guessing.
On a boundary question, accepting an adjoiner's deed or a tax map as controlling without checking whether it is consistent with the original government survey or the common grantor's conveyance, and without evaluating the intent of the parties.
Candidates take the most recent or most convenient document as authoritative and do not trace the chain of title or consider the original survey's control.
What to do instead
Trace the chain to the common grantor, compare each conveyance to the original survey and monuments, and identify which document expresses the parties' intent. State the controlling document and the reasoning in the answer.
On a computations item, not checking the closure of a traverse or a boundary before using the coordinates, and not distinguishing a random error from a blunder.
Candidates trust the first computed result and skip the closure check because it is extra work, so a single blunder propagates through every subsequent answer.
What to do instead
Always compute the closure and compare to an allowable tolerance before using the coordinates. If the closure fails, isolate the blunder by checking angles and then distances, and correct before proceeding.