KY Land Surveyor common mistakes
KY Land Surveyor · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating record (deed/plat) distances and bearings as subordinate to the new field measurement, and 'correcting' the record to match what was measured between found monuments.
Candidates come from a measurement culture where precision equals correctness, and modern GNSS/total station work feels more authoritative than an 1890s deed. They forget that retracement establishes where the boundary was originally located, not where it should be.
What to do instead
Drill the hierarchy of evidence: natural monuments, then artificial monuments, then courses and distances, then area, with calls for adjoiners and coordinates treated as the weakest. Practice problems where the found monument conflicts with the deed distance and the correct answer is to hold the monument and explain the discrepancy, not to move the line.
Applying proportional (proration) adjustment to every discrepancy or, conversely, prorating a line that should not be prorated (e.g., prorating where a monument controls or where only an interior line is short).
Proration is taught as a formula, so candidates apply it mechanically without first asking whether the conditions for proration exist (missing monument, excess/deficiency, original vs. subsequent survey).
What to do instead
Work through the decision tree before computing: Is there a controlling monument? Is the discrepancy in an original or a later line? Is this a single missing corner or a whole-line deficiency? Then practice both the 'prorate' and 'do not prorate' outcomes on the same fact pattern so the condition, not the arithmetic, drives the answer.
Mixing state plane coordinate values directly into boundary computations (e.g., rotating a deed bearing by the grid convergence or scaling ground distances to grid without documenting it) and reporting a boundary position in grid coordinates as if it were the record position.
Candidates learn grid/ground conversions and then over-apply them, forgetting that the deed describes ground bearings referenced to a stated meridian, and that grid-to-ground scale and convergence vary with location.
What to do instead
Practice the full pipeline explicitly: record bearing to ground, ground to grid via combined factor, grid to ground, and always state the convergence and scale used. Do problems requiring a written note of the transformation so the distinction between record and grid is visible in the answer.
Confusing the basis of bearings (magnetic, true/astronomic, assumed, or grid) between the record and the new survey, then reporting bearings that cannot be compared to the deed.
Magnetic declination changes over time and varies by location; candidates forget that an 1850 magnetic bearing must be corrected for secular variation before comparison, and they neglect to state their own basis.
What to do instead
Before any bearing comparison, write down the record basis and the current basis and the correction applied. Practice declination problems using the secular variation for the specific region and era, and always include a basis-of-bearings statement in the answer.
Misidentifying the controlling monument or the correct corner to hold when multiple monuments exist, or accepting a found pipe as original without evaluating it against the record, occupation, and adjoining calls.
Candidates look for 'a' monument and stop, rather than evaluating evidence: age, type, position relative to record and occupation, and consistency with adjoiners. They also fail to distinguish original from later-set corners.
What to do instead
Practice evidence-weighing scenarios with conflicting monuments, occupation lines, and deeds. Build a habit of listing each item of evidence with its weight and reasoning before selecting the controlling corner, and explain why the rejected evidence was rejected.
Skipping the statutory research step: not checking Kentucky boundary law specifics (e.g., the role of KRS chapter 322 licensing provisions, adverse possession and boundary by agreement/acquiescence doctrines, and recording requirements) before writing a boundary opinion.
Candidates focus on math and geometry and treat law as background reading, so they answer a legal question with a measurement answer.
What to do instead
Build a one-page legal checklist per boundary problem: statutory recording requirements, adverse possession elements and statutory period, boundary by agreement/acquiescence, and the effect of a senior right. Apply the checklist to every written scenario answer so legal reasoning is explicit.
Reporting a boundary or preparing a plat without the required elements (basis of bearings, area, monument descriptions, adjoining owner references, surveyor's certification, date, scale) or with inconsistent area and closure figures.
Candidates treat the plat as a drawing task and underestimate the checklist nature of map/plat content and the standards for a recordable document.
What to do instead
Memorize and rehearse a plat-content checklist and a closure/precision statement format. Practice producing a complete written plat description and certification for a simple parcel, then self-check against the checklist before finalizing.
Using unadjusted or inadequately adjusted traverses and reporting closure without evaluating it, or accepting a closure that meets a numeric tolerance while the misclosure pattern indicates a blunder.
Candidates chase a target ratio (e.g., 1:10,000) and stop, ignoring that a good-looking closure can hide a compensating error and that angular and linear misclosure must be evaluated separately.
What to do instead
Practice computing angular misclosure against the expected value for the number of angles, then linear misclosure, then inspecting residuals for pattern. Require a written statement of both misclosures and the adjustment method used in every traverse answer.
Ignoring measurement quality issues: not applying instrument/reflector constants, not correcting for temperature and pressure in EDM, not accounting for centering and target height errors, and treating GNSS-derived elevations or positions as survey-grade without checking.
Candidates memorize formulas but do not connect them to field procedure, and they over-trust GNSS horizontal accuracy and especially ellipsoid vs. orthometric height.
What to do instead
Work numerical correction problems (EDM scale, curvature and refraction, prism constant) and pair each with the field procedure that prevents the error. For GNSS, practice distinguishing ellipsoid height from orthometric height and state the geoid model and network/RTK checks required.
Treating ethical and professional-practice scenarios as abstract and answering with a generic 'be honest' statement rather than identifying the specific duty, the specific conflict, and the required action (disclosure, withdrawal, notification of the client and affected parties).
Candidates prepare for computation and law and give ethics questions minimal study time, so they miss that these questions test concrete obligations: competence limits, conflicts of interest, confidential client information, and the duty to report unprofessional conduct.
What to do instead
Practice scenario questions by naming the duty at issue, the party owed the duty, and the specific action and documentation required. Review the standards of practice and rules of professional conduct article by article and map each to a realistic field or office scenario.