IL Land Surveyor common mistakes
IL Land Surveyor · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating a deed call for an adjoiner's monument (e.g., "to the iron pin at the corner of the Jones tract") as controlling over the record distance without first finding and evaluating that monument on the ground.
Candidates memorize "monuments control over distances" as a slogan and apply it mechanically, forgetting that the rule presupposes the monument is the one called for, undisturbed, and identifiable; when the pin is missing or has been replaced, the call must be resolved by other means and the slogan becomes an error.
What to do instead
Before ranking evidence, establish whether the called-for monument exists, is original, and is corroborated by the adjoiner's own records. Practice writing a short hierarchy statement for each problem: natural monument, artificial monument, course and distance, area, with the qualifications that make each rank conditional.
Accepting a computed area from the deed as proof that a boundary is correct, or conversely rejecting a deed because its area does not close to the stated acreage.
Area is the weakest call in the hierarchy, but candidates see a numeric mismatch and assume a blunder in their own work or in the deed, then "correct" a boundary line to force the acreage to match.
What to do instead
Learn to state explicitly that area is evidence of last resort and that a small acreage discrepancy is expected from deed rounding and from the difference between record and measured bearings. When area conflicts with monuments, report the monument-based boundary and note the area difference as an observation, not a correction.
Ignoring the distinction between a boundary survey and a location (mortgage) survey, and preparing a plat that shows improvements and area but omits boundary evidence, monumentation, and the basis of bearings.
Candidates come from practice settings where the two products look similar on paper, and the exam's fact patterns often describe only the client's request ("a survey for a loan"), which pulls the candidate toward the cheaper product.
What to do instead
Build a checklist that separates the two deliverables by purpose, evidentiary standard, and content, and rehearse classifying fact patterns by the question the client actually needs answered. If the request is for a boundary determination, the plat must show the evidence relied on and the monuments set.
Describing a boundary by metes and bounds without closing the traverse, without tying to a section corner or recorded subdivision, and without stating the basis of bearings.
Candidates write descriptions the way they write field notes, assuming the reader shares their orientation and reference point; the exam rewards descriptions that stand alone when the surveyor is unavailable.
What to do instead
Draft descriptions from a fixed template: commencement tied to a record corner or monument, point of beginning, bearings with a stated basis, distances, closing call back to the POB, area, and a monument note. Verify closure arithmetic before finalizing.
Confusing grid bearings with astronomic or record bearings and mixing them within a single description or plat.
Field data may be on state plane grid while the deed is on record bearing, and candidates carry both into the deliverable without reconciling them, producing a plat whose bearings do not agree with the deed it purports to retrace.
What to do instead
Adopt a discipline of declaring the basis of bearings on every plat and description, then converting all evidence to that single basis before analysis. Practice computing the convergence or rotation between the record basis and grid so the conversion is a deliberate step, not an afterthought.
Using a single GPS-derived position as a boundary monument position without accounting for datum, epoch, and the difference between a passive mark and an active reference frame.
Candidates treat GNSS output as a precise coordinate rather than a measurement in a stated frame, and the exam tests whether the candidate understands that coordinates change with realization and epoch.
What to do instead
Review how NAD 83 realizations differ and how to state coordinates with their reference frame and epoch. For boundary work, treat GNSS positions as ties to passive monuments and document the transformation used.
Answering a question about the Illinois surveyor's responsibilities by reciting a general national standard rather than the specific Illinois requirement.
Study material and habit from other jurisdictions dominate candidates' preparation, and the state-specific statutory duties, record-keeping, and plat content requirements are learned late or not at all.
What to do instead
Build a one-page summary of Illinois-specific obligations drawn from the governing statute and rules, cross-referenced to the domain, and test yourself by writing the requirement from memory. Where a question turns on a state-specific number or procedure, verify it against the current rule before relying on memory.
Accepting an engagement, or signing a plat, outside the area in which the licensee is competent, without disclosure or referral.
Candidates read competence as a business decision rather than an ethical duty, and exam scenarios often frame the issue as a courtesy to a long-standing client.
What to do instead
Memorize the structure of the competence rule: undertake only work you are qualified for, disclose limits, and obtain assistance or decline. Practice identifying the trigger words in a scenario that signal a competence problem rather than a scheduling problem.
Failing to preserve and disclose the evidentiary record - field notes, computations, and the reasoning behind a boundary determination - so that the conclusion cannot be defended later.
Candidates treat documentation as administrative overhead and assume the plat alone is the record; the exam tests whether the candidate understands that the surveyor may be called to explain a determination years later.
What to do instead
Treat the file as the deliverable's foundation: retain raw field data, the evidence evaluation, and the reasoning. In practice questions, ask what a subsequent surveyor or a court would need to reproduce the decision, and include that in the answer.
Managing time by reading every question twice and finishing the first pass with unanswered items, rather than marking uncertain items and returning to them.
Candidates fear committing to an answer on a computational item and stall, losing the opportunity to answer the many items they could resolve quickly.
What to do instead
Rehearse a three-pass strategy: answer confident items, mark uncertain ones, then return. For computational items, estimate the answer's magnitude before computing so an arithmetic slip is visible, and never leave a blank when there is no penalty for guessing.