MI Land Surveyor common mistakes
MI Land Surveyor · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Applies the maxim 'monuments control over distances' automatically to every deed conflict, without first determining which conveyance is senior and whether the monument existed when each deed was written.
The maxim is memorized from national exam-prep material and feels decisive, so candidates skip the junior/senior rights analysis that actually governs conflicts between sequential conveyances versus simultaneous ones.
What to do instead
Before applying any rule of construction, build a dated conveyance chronology, label each deed as senior or junior, and state in the answer whether the monument was in place at the time of the junior grant. Only then rank the calls (monument, course, distance, area, coordinates).
Stops the chain-of-title research at the client's current deed and never establishes a root of title far enough back to test Michigan's 40-year marketable record title act, so old easements, mineral reservations, and reverter clauses are missed or wrongly treated as extinguished.
Candidates equate 'title search' with 'finding the last deed' and underestimate how much of a boundary opinion depends on interests created decades earlier.
What to do instead
Adopt a written search protocol: root of title at least 40 years back, list every recorded interest in the search period, and classify each as preserved by exception, extinguished by the act, or outside its scope. Put the root date and the exception list in the survey file.
Treats the government meander line along a Great Lakes shore or inland lake as the property boundary, or fixes the ordinary high water mark from one field shot with no tie to plat, statute, or historical evidence.
Meander lines look like boundaries on the plat and are easy to occupy; the distinction between meander line, OHWM, and sovereign bottomlands is a Michigan-specific issue that generic review courses cover thinly.
What to do instead
Locate and monument the OHWM as the boundary for riparian parcels, use the meander line only for area computation, and document riparian and bottomland rights. Record the evidence used (vegetation, soil, bank geometry, historical records) and flag any Great Lakes bottomlands question for legal review.
Publishes state plane coordinates as boundary calls, or scales ground distances to grid with the combined factor applied in the wrong direction, so the record and the field data disagree by parts per million that grow into feet.
Software silently handles the projection, so the candidate never sees the conversion; the combined factor is close to 1.0 and directional errors hide in small projects but surface in retracement.
What to do instead
Keep grid and ground in separate, clearly labeled tables. Multiply ground by the combined factor to get grid and divide to go back; carry the factor, zone, datum, and epoch in the file header, and run a closure check on a known pair of published coordinates.
Accepts a single network RTK or static-derived position as a corner or vertical control value without confirming the projection zone, geoid model, and units match the record data, and without a redundant check on an independent control pair.
RTK fixes display a confident-looking coordinate almost instantly, and Michigan's multiple state plane zones plus the US survey foot versus international foot distinction make a silent unit or zone mismatch easy.
What to do instead
Write a setup checklist: datum, realization and epoch, zone, geoid, units. Check the fix against a published or previously verified monument before and after the session, and reject any baseline whose residual exceeds project tolerance. Store the raw observation and the check in the project file.
Lays out formwork, anchor bolts, or utilities from one total station setup on an unverified control point, with no backsight check or third-point resection, and discovers the rotation or translation after concrete is placed.
Construction schedules push for a fast stakeout and a single setup looks correct because it closes internally to its own backsight; a disturbed or misidentified control point produces a consistent but wrong layout.
What to do instead
Occupy at least two control points, check the backsight distance and angle against record, and close on a third point before staking. Set a written control-verification record and require re-verification after any excavation or paving activity near control.
Confuses design elevation with existing-ground elevation when computing cut and fill, or reports the reverse sign because a spreadsheet and a field controller use opposite conventions.
Cut/fill is a signed difference, and the sign convention differs between software packages and between 'depth of cut' and 'elevation difference' reporting; the datum is often left implicit.
What to do instead
State the convention in writing (design minus existing, positive equals fill) and the datum on every exhibit. Spot-check at least three stakes by hand calculation, and label each stake with both design elevation and existing elevation so the contractor can verify the sign on site.
Certifies a land division or preliminary plat without testing the parcel split against Michigan's Land Division Act limits (parcel count within the 10-year window and the 10-acre threshold, plus the statutory exemptions) and against the local zoning ordinance.
Candidates treat the plat as a drafting and geometry exercise and rely on the client's assurance that 'the county already approved the split,' so the legal divisibility of the parent parcel is never independently verified.
What to do instead
Build a division-history table before drawing: parent parcel description, every prior transfer and date, resulting acreage, and exempt or non-exempt status. Check both the Act's limits and the local ordinance minimums, and note the findings in the surveyor's report attached to the plat.
Accepts an assignment framed as 'prove my neighbor is over the line' or a fee contingent on the survey result, then weights ambiguous evidence toward the client's desired outcome.
Retainer pressure and the desire to keep a referral source push the surveyor toward advocacy, and the ethical failure is gradual rather than a single obvious act.
What to do instead
Use a written agreement defining scope, fee basis, and independent judgment before fieldwork. Decline contingent compensation, disclose any interest in the outcome, and write the evidence analysis so each monument or deed call is assessed on its merits with contrary evidence recorded, not omitted.
Signs and seals a survey map or plat prepared largely by unlicensed staff or an out-of-state firm without personal review of the field evidence and computations, or seals work outside the scope of the Michigan license.
Deadlines and delegation make the seal a formality, and candidates are vague about what 'responsible charge' requires and about the boundary of Michigan licensure for real property in the state.
What to do instead
Keep a review file showing what was checked, by whom, and when, and seal only work performed under your direct supervisory control. Confirm statutory authority and board rules before sealing, and document any reliance on another professional's certified work.