GA Land Surveyor common mistakes
GA Land Surveyor · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating the Georgia minimum standards for boundary surveys as identical to the ALTA/NSPS standard and citing ALTA table requirements (such as the 0.07 ft + 50 ppm positional tolerance) as if they were the state boundary standard.
Candidates study ALTA/NSPS land title surveys because they are widely published and appear in reference materials, then assume the same numeric tolerances govern all Georgia boundary work. The two standards serve different purposes and have different closure and monumentation requirements.
What to do instead
Build a one-page comparison table separating Georgia Board rules and minimum technical standards from ALTA/NSPS requirements. For each item, record which standard controls, what the numeric requirement is, and when it applies. Practice classifying scenarios (a mortgage loan survey versus a title survey for a commercial sale) and stating which standard governs before answering the technical part of the question.
Computing a closed traverse's linear misclosure and then reporting the precision ratio using the wrong denominator, such as dividing by the number of courses or by the total northing instead of by the total horizontal perimeter.
The formula is memorized as a ratio without understanding that precision expresses relative error per unit of traverse length. Under exam time pressure, candidates grab whatever number is nearby rather than the perimeter.
What to do instead
Work ten traverse problems end to end, each time writing the perimeter sum explicitly before forming the ratio, and express the result in the conventional 1:N form. Check plausibility: a ratio like 1:5,000 for a routine total-station traverse should look reasonable, while 1:50 or 1:500,000 should trigger a recheck.
Applying a scale factor or combined factor in the wrong direction when converting between ground distances and grid (state plane) distances.
Candidates learn that grid equals ground times combined factor but forget that ground distances are generally larger than grid distances, so dividing when they should multiply produces an answer that looks numerically plausible and passes a careless sanity check.
What to do instead
Anchor the concept physically: the projection shrinks distances to the ellipsoid and the grid, so grid distances are smaller than ground distances in most cases. Before computing, state in words whether the answer should be larger or smaller than the input, then perform the operation and verify the direction matches the prediction. Drill both directions with elevation and scale factors given separately.
Confusing bearings and azimuths, particularly when converting quadrant bearings to azimuths in the northwest and southwest quadrants, or when adding angles that cross north.
The arithmetic is simple, so candidates rush and apply a single conversion rule (for example, 180 minus the bearing angle) to all four quadrants. Crossing north requires subtracting 360, and that step is easily dropped.
What to do instead
Redraw the four quadrants and write the conversion formula beside each one before starting any problem. For each traverse computation, sketch the figure and label the direction of travel. When an azimuth exceeds 360, subtract 360 and note it explicitly rather than carrying an impossible value forward.
Ignoring curvature and refraction corrections on long sightings, or applying the refraction coefficient with the wrong sign or magnitude.
Candidates memorize the combined correction as approximately 0.0206 times distance squared in feet but lose track of whether curvature raises or lowers the apparent target and how refraction partially offsets it, so sign errors survive into the final elevation.
What to do instead
Derive the combined correction once from first principles so the sign is understood rather than memorized, then practice problems at several distances to see when the correction becomes significant relative to the required accuracy. State the direction of the correction in words before plugging in numbers.
Answering boundary questions by relying on the written deed calls alone when the facts describe a conflict with monuments, adjoining deeds, or long-standing occupation.
Candidates with strong computation backgrounds default to the numeric calls because those are quantifiable, while the rules of evidence and priority of calls feel subjective and are under-studied.
What to do instead
Memorize the hierarchy of evidence as applied in Georgia practice, with natural monuments and artificial monuments generally controlling over courses and distances, and distances controlling over area. Then work through conflict scenarios in writing, stating which call controls and why, and connect each to the underlying principle rather than to a preferred answer.
Skipping the mandatory research and records-retention steps in scenario questions, such as failing to note that adjoining property records, plats, and prior surveys should be examined, or misstating the retention period for survey records.
These items are administrative rather than computational, so candidates deprioritize them, and retention periods and research obligations are easy to blur with other states' rules.
What to do instead
Create a checklist of Georgia-specific administrative obligations drawn from the Board rules: research before fieldwork, monumentation and filing requirements, record retention, and seal and signature requirements. Review the checklist weekly and answer scenario questions by walking through it in order.
Mishandling the professional responsibility scenarios by choosing the response that protects the client or employer rather than the response that complies with the Board's rules on competency, conflicts of interest, and reporting obligations.
Candidates read ethics items as customer-service questions and pick the accommodating answer. They also overlook that accepting work outside one's competence is itself a violation, even when the client insists.
What to do instead
For every ethics scenario, identify the specific duty implicated (competence, honesty, conflict of interest, sealing only work one supervised, reporting unlicensed practice) before reading the options. Eliminate any option that defers to the client's preference over the rule. Practice writing the governing principle in one sentence, then select the option that matches it.
Using an unadjusted or partially adjusted coordinate set to compute a final area or position, or failing to check that a computed closure meets the applicable standard before accepting the result.
Candidates treat adjustment as an optional final step and stop once the raw numbers are in hand, especially when the raw misclosure looks small. They also forget that the applicable standard may impose a specific closure requirement.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed workflow for every traverse problem: compute misclosure, compare to the standard, adjust, then compute final coordinates and area. Write the acceptance criterion at the top of the work before starting so the comparison cannot be skipped. Verify the final area with an independent method such as a coordinate cross-product check.
Misreading the question's units or significant figures, mixing degrees-minutes-seconds with decimal degrees, or reporting an answer with more precision than the input data support.
Exam items deliberately mix units and formats, and candidates convert mentally under time pressure. Angular arithmetic in base 60 invites borrowing errors, and calculator entry errors compound.
What to do instead
Convert all angular input to a single format at the start of each problem and note the conversion. Perform degree-minute-second arithmetic with explicit borrow steps rather than in your head. Before selecting an answer, check that the precision of the result matches the precision of the given data and that the units match what the question asked for.