IN Land Surveyor common mistakes
IN Land Surveyor · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating a recorded plat bearing or distance as conclusive boundary evidence and computing an area or setback from it without first checking it against monument positions and the record chain.
Candidates memorize 'monuments control over distances and directions' as a slogan but do not operationalize it, so under time pressure they default to the numbers printed on the plat because they are unambiguous and easy to compute with.
What to do instead
Before any computation, write a one-line hierarchy for the parcel: monuments called for, then monuments found, then courses and distances, then area, then coordinates. For every question, state which rank the disputed value occupies and explain why the higher-ranked evidence is or is not available. Practice by re-deriving a boundary from a hypothetical monument set that conflicts with the plat by a few hundredths of a foot and articulating which line moves and which stays fixed.
Applying a compass rule adjustment to a closed traverse without first screening for a single blunder, then reporting the adjusted coordinates as if the misclosure were random error.
Adjustment software returns a balanced traverse regardless of whether the misclosure came from random error or from one reversed backsight, one transposed distance, or one mis-set instrument. Candidates trust the output because the residuals look small after distribution.
What to do instead
Always compute the linear misclosure and the relative precision, then compare the misclosure vector against each leg's bearing. A misclosure that roughly parallels one leg points to a distance blunder on that leg; one perpendicular to a leg suggests an angle blunder. Only adjust after the pattern is random. Keep a written rule: no adjustment until the misclosure direction has been explained or declared random.
Confusing grid bearings and grid distances with ground or geodetic values, mixing them in a single computation, or reporting a state plane coordinate without stating the zone and epoch.
Projection reduction is conceptually dense and candidates learn the formulas as isolated steps. In mixed problems they apply a scale factor in one direction and forget the convergence correction, or they treat a combined factor as a pure distance multiplier while ignoring the rotation between grid north and true north.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed order of operations and write it on scratch paper: ground to ellipsoid (elevation factor), ellipsoid to grid (scale factor), then rotate for convergence to move between true and grid azimuths. Label every number with its surface (ground, ellipsoid, grid) and its zone. When a problem gives you a state plane coordinate, immediately note zone, NAD83 realization, and epoch before doing anything else.
Assuming a coordinate system's stated datum is sufficient and ignoring realization and epoch, so that coordinates from different vintages are differenced as if they were in the same frame.
Candidates treat NAD83 as a single fixed thing. Modern products may be referenced to different realizations, and in active tectonic regions coordinates shift measurably between epochs. The error is invisible in the arithmetic and only shows up as a small, unexplained residual.
What to do instead
For any coordinate comparison, record four attributes: datum, realization, epoch, and zone or projection. If any differ, either transform to a common frame or state the expected magnitude of the discrepancy and whether it matters at the precision required. Build the habit of writing those four attributes at the top of every computation page.
Misidentifying the appropriate accuracy standard for a survey and then reporting a positional tolerance that the field data cannot support, or conversely over-tightening a survey that did not require it.
Candidates conflate instrument precision, network accuracy, and local accuracy, and they apply a single remembered number to every product. They also confuse relative accuracy between adjacent points with absolute accuracy to the datum.
What to do instead
Before answering, classify the deliverable: control, boundary, topographic, or as-built, and whether the requirement is relative or absolute. State the standard you are applying and why it fits. When a question supplies residuals, compute the actual statistic (for example a misclosure ratio or an RMS) and compare it to the stated requirement rather than asserting a pass or fail from memory.
Using a total station or GNSS receiver without verifying the instrument's calibration status and the day's setup checks, and answering field-procedure questions as if the equipment were known-good.
Exam questions often describe a measurement scenario without mentioning checks, and candidates answer the geometry question while skipping the quality-assurance layer that a field surveyor would perform first.
What to do instead
For every field scenario, list the pre-measurement checks explicitly: level bubble and compensator check, prism constant, EDM or angle check against a known baseline, and for GNSS a known-point occupation or independent check shot. If a scenario omits these, say what you would verify before trusting the result. This also gives you a defensible answer when the question is really about detecting a systematic error.
Answering a public land survey question by counting section numbers or township lines from memory instead of reconstructing the cadastral framework from the governing rules for that situation.
The PLSS is taught as a map to memorize, but exam scenarios test the rules for retracement, subdivision of sections, and the treatment of excess and deficiency, which do not follow a simple counting scheme once the original corners are lost or the section is irregular.
What to do instead
Work every PLSS problem from first principles: identify the controlling original corners, determine whether the section is regular or irregular, and then apply the rule for the specific subdivision (for example how aliquot parts are laid out when a section has excess or deficiency, or how lost corners are reestablished by proportionate measurement). Draw the section and label which lines are fixed and which are proportioned.
Treating adverse possession, prescription, acquiescence, or practical location as interchangeable doctrines, or assuming a boundary line agreement cures a title problem without addressing the record.
These doctrines have overlapping fact patterns but different elements and different effects on record title. Candidates remember the labels and pick the one that sounds closest to the story instead of testing each element.
What to do instead
Build a short element checklist for each doctrine and run the facts through it: for adverse possession, the statutory period, actual, open and notorious, exclusive, continuous, and hostile or under claim of right as the jurisdiction defines it; for acquiescence, a recognized boundary line and a period of acceptance; for agreement, the writing and intent requirements. State which elements are satisfied and which are missing, and note that a boundary agreement typically resolves the location of a line rather than conveying title.
Giving a regulatory or ethics answer based on general professional practice without anchoring it to the specific Indiana statute, board rule, or standards of practice that govern the situation.
Candidates study ethics as abstract principles and never map them onto the state's licensing framework, so they cannot distinguish what is merely good practice from what is a licensure requirement, a mandatory reporting duty, or a prohibited act.
What to do instead
For each ethics or practice item, identify the governing authority first: state licensing statute, board rule, or the state's minimum standards for surveys. Then answer within that authority. Memorize the categories the board actually regulates, such as practice by unlicensed persons, sealing and signing of work, competence and supervision, and handling of client funds or conflicts, and be able to state the duty in one sentence for each.
Describing a boundary resolution or a survey report without documenting the evidence, the reasoning, and the basis of the opinion, so the answer states a conclusion but cannot support it.
Candidates focus on getting the number right and treat the written record as formality. On scenario questions about professional responsibility, they answer what the surveyor concluded rather than how the surveyor demonstrated the basis for the conclusion.
What to do instead
Practice writing a three-part answer for every boundary scenario: the evidence found and its weight, the reasoning that connects evidence to the line location, and the resulting opinion stated to the precision the evidence supports. Include what you would put in the file, such as field notes, monument records, and the basis for rejecting conflicting calls. This habit also protects you on questions about the duty to disclose uncertainty rather than overstate precision.