AZ Land Surveyor common mistakes
AZ Land Surveyor · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Applying a plain 'area math' solution to a boundary problem, accepting the deed's acreage and bearings as controlling without first searching for and evaluating occupation evidence, adjoiner deeds, and monument calls.
Candidates trained in mathematics gravitate to the computation they can verify, and the deed gives a neat, closed figure; evaluating competing evidence requires judgment with no single right answer, which feels risky under time pressure.
What to do instead
Before computing anything, write out the boundary evidence hierarchy on scratch paper (monuments/occupation, then calls for adjoiners, then courses and distances, then area) and force yourself to state in words which call controls and why for every practice problem; practice problems where the deed area and the occupied area conflict until the reasoning becomes routine.
Treating a found monument as controlling without first establishing that it is the original corner called for in the deed, ignoring signs of later resetting such as fresh concrete, galvanized pipe in a rusted can, or a position inconsistent with the record geometry.
The 'monuments control' slogan is memorized as an absolute rule, so candidates skip the antecedent question of whether the monument is the one called for and whether it is undisturbed.
What to do instead
For each found monument, run a checklist: what the record says should be there (type, size, accessories, ties), whether the physical evidence matches, whether the position closes with the record distances within a defensible tolerance, and whether any evidence of disturbance exists; write the conclusion and the supporting facts in one sentence.
Accepting a record bearing or distance as correct and 'correcting' the field data to fit it, instead of testing the record against the field evidence and reporting the discrepancy.
The record is perceived as authoritative and the field crew as fallible, and reconciling a misclosure takes time the candidate feels it does not have.
What to do instead
Adopt the habit of computing the record figure independently (inverse between record coordinates or deed calls) and comparing it to the measured value before forming any opinion; when they disagree, document both values, the source of each, and the apparent reason, and never silently adjust one to match the other.
Describing a parcel using only bearing and distance calls with no basis of bearing, no tie to a public land survey corner or recorded subdivision, and no statement of the area's derivation.
Candidates write descriptions the way deed examples in study materials look, and those examples often omit the preamble because the surrounding record supplies it.
What to do instead
Draft every practice description with an explicit preamble: basis of bearing, point of beginning tied to a monument or record corner, monument calls at every corner, and a closing statement with area and derivation; then self-check the description by writing the inverse from it and confirming closure.
Confusing the order of calls in a deed with their legal weight, for example treating 'to the oak tree' and 'thence north 200 feet' as equally reliable or assuming the last call governs.
The deed reads as a sequential narrative, so candidates assume sequence equals priority, and the priority rules are learned as a list without being applied to conflicting calls.
What to do instead
Practice with deeds containing internal conflicts (monument vs. distance, distance vs. area, call for adjoiner vs. course) and write a short paragraph for each explaining which call prevails and the reasoning; memorize the priority order as a decision sequence, not a list.
Using a single total-station setup and a single backsight without checking for angular error, and reporting coordinates without stating the control and adjustment basis.
Field exercises in training often use a single setup where errors are small, and candidates never see how an unchecked orientation error propagates through a whole traverse.
What to do instead
In every computation problem, close the traverse, compute the angular and linear misclosure, compare against an adopted tolerance, and state the adjustment method applied; practice a deliberately misoriented backsight to see the resulting displacement at the far end of the traverse.
Mixing coordinate systems, epochs, or units within a single computation, such as combining State Plane coordinates with ground distances or treating grid azimuth as ground azimuth without a scale factor.
Software hides the transformation, so candidates never learn where the conversion happens, and the difference is small enough at short distances to escape notice until it matters.
What to do instead
Label every number with its system and units as you write it, and explicitly compute the combined factor (grid scale times elevation factor) whenever a distance crosses between grid and ground; work practice problems that require a round trip between ground and grid coordinates to confirm the result returns to the start.
Answering a question about Arizona survey standards or the practice of land surveying from general memory of another state's rules or from intuition about what seems reasonable.
The statutory and rule material is dense and dry, candidates defer studying it, and much of it sounds like common sense until the specific threshold or requirement is tested.
What to do instead
Build a one-page summary of the Arizona statutes and rules that govern boundary surveys, monumentation, records of survey, and minimum standards, citing each item to its section; drill the specific numbers and triggers until they can be recalled without the summary.
Treating the record of survey filing requirement as discretionary or as satisfied by filing a corner record, without analyzing the statutory conditions that trigger the obligation.
The triggering conditions are fact-specific and candidates reduce them to a vague memory that a survey 'may' need to be recorded.
What to do instead
Write out each statutory trigger as an if-then statement with the specific factual scenario that activates it, and practice classifying short fact patterns as file / do not file with a one-line justification for each.
Skipping the check on professional responsibility items such as sealing, signing, and responsible charge, assuming the exam only tests technical content.
Technical topics feel more concrete and testable, so candidates allocate study time there and treat the practice-related rules as filler.
What to do instead
Treat the responsibility rules as a discrete study unit with the same weight as computations: list what a seal certifies, who may take responsible charge, and what must appear on a survey document, then answer scenario questions about who may sign what and when a seal is required.