MN Land Surveyor common mistakes
MN Land Surveyor · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating a recorded plat, government survey corner, or deed line as controlling without first establishing what the original surveyor actually did, then 'correcting' the position to match the record math.
Candidates trained on math-heavy coursework default to record bearings and distances as truth and skip the monument-first analysis; retracement doctrine (monuments over courses and distances) is tested heavily and is counterintuitive to computation-oriented examinees.
What to do instead
For every retracement scenario, write out the order of evidence explicitly before computing anything: natural monuments, artificial monuments, then courses and distances, then area, with intent of the original surveyor as the guiding principle. Practice by writing that hierarchy at the top of scratch paper on every boundary question.
Applying the wrong rule of construction to an ambiguous deed, for example using quantity/area to defeat a clear monument call, or resolving a senior/junior rights question by proration instead of by priority of the original grant.
The rules (monuments over distances, senior rights, calls for adjoiners, specific over general) are similar-sounding and candidates memorize labels without learning which call prevails in which fact pattern; exam questions deliberately stack two plausible rules.
What to do instead
Build a one-page decision table: for each conflict pair (monument vs. distance, specific vs. general description, senior vs. junior parcel, natural vs. artificial monument), record the prevailing call and a one-line example. Redo missed items by identifying which conflict pair the question was actually testing.
Prorating or proportioning PLSS section subdivision lines in situations where the original government survey left no basis for proration, or misassigning excess/deficiency to the wrong aliquot part.
Candidates learn 'proportion the excess and deficiency' as a slogan and apply it to every irregular section, including cases where the deficiency belongs to a specific lot or where the plat itself assigns the shortage.
What to do instead
Work PLSS subdivision problems from the original plat geometry every time: identify whether the deficiency arises from converging meridians, an irregular boundary, or a meander line, then apply the specific statutory/administrative treatment for that case rather than a blanket proration. Do timed drills on irregular sections with a sketch of the government plat before solving.
Losing track of the difference between grid and ground distances, or between geodetic and projected bearings, when checking a boundary computation or reporting a misclosure.
Computation questions are often set in State Plane coordinates while the deed is in ground distances; candidates combine the two without a scale factor or convergence correction and get a plausible but wrong answer.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed workflow: state the coordinate system, note the combined scale factor and convergence, convert to ground before comparing to deed record, and convert back only for final coordinate reporting. Show the conversion factor in every computation answer so partial credit and self-checking are possible.
Reporting a position or misclosure without stating the accuracy standard, datum, epoch, and adjustment method, or treating RTK/GNSS positions as directly comparable to a record monument without a localization check.
Candidates focus on getting a number and treat metadata as administrative trivia; exam items test whether the surveyor knows that a coordinate is meaningless without datum, epoch, and realization, and that GNSS-derived positions require independent verification.
What to do instead
Practice writing complete position statements: datum and realization, epoch, adjustment, accuracy at 95% confidence, and method. For GNSS items, always ask whether a redundant check against a passive mark or a second occupation was performed, and answer accordingly.
Citing a Minnesota statute or rule from memory by number without verifying the current text, or applying an out-of-state rule to a Minnesota-specific procedure such as corner restoration or certificate of survey requirements.
Statutes and rules are amended, and many candidates study from summaries or neighboring-state materials; exam items are written to the current Minnesota provision and to Minnesota-specific practice.
What to do instead
Maintain a personal citation index keyed to the current Minnesota Statutes chapter and the applicable administrative rules, with a one-line summary of what each provision requires and when it applies. Before the exam, re-read the current text of the provisions you cite most, and never answer a 'must the surveyor...' item without checking the operative verb (shall vs. may).
Confusing the nature of an easement with the nature of a fee taking or a prescriptive right, for example treating a utility easement as giving exclusive possession, or assuming a right-of-way width from a centerline description without checking the instrument.
Easement questions mix property-law concepts with survey evidence; candidates conflate the burdened estate, the scope of use, and the width or location of the servient area, and the answer choices reward the confusion.
What to do instead
For each easement item, write three lines: the instrument creating it (express, implied, prescriptive, or statutory), the scope and width actually described, and who holds the dominant estate. Answer only from those three lines, and flag any question where the width is not stated in the instrument.
Preparing or reviewing a plat or certificate of survey without checking that all required elements are present and internally consistent, such as monument ties, area closure, dedications, and signature and seal blocks.
Candidates treat plat review as a formatting exercise and miss substantive requirements, including that the plat must be consistent with the underlying boundary survey and that dedications and vacations must be properly documented.
What to do instead
Build a checklist from the applicable Minnesota platting statute and local ordinance: title and owner, boundary closure, monumentation, lot and block numbering, dedications, easements shown, surveyor certificate and seal, and approvals. Run the checklist against practice plats and mark each missing element with the requirement it violates.
Writing or interpreting a metes-and-bounds description that does not close, omits the point of commencement or basis of bearing, or relies on an unrecorded monument as the sole tie.
Candidates under time pressure omit the commencement and basis of bearing, and they do not run a closure check on their own written description; exam items test whether the description is locatable by a stranger.
What to do instead
Draft every description to a fixed template: point of commencement, basis of bearing, monumented calls with bearings and distances, tie to a record corner, area, and closing statement. Then compute the closure and confirm the description returns to the point of beginning within an acceptable tolerance before finalizing.
Assuming a boundary line on the ground matches the record line without investigating occupation, improvements, and adjoining record evidence, then reporting a location that ignores adverse possession or practical location issues.
Candidates separate 'survey math' from 'boundary law' and treat occupation evidence as irrelevant to a retracement; Minnesota recognizes doctrines that can fix a boundary at an occupied line, so the omission changes the correct answer.
What to do instead
Add an occupation-and-evidence step to every boundary scenario: list improvements, fences, monuments, adjoining deeds, and any evidence of practical location or acquiescence, then state whether that evidence is consistent with the record location. Practice by writing a short evidence memo for each missed item.