ND Land Surveyor common mistakes
ND Land Surveyor · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating a found monument as controlling without first checking whether it is the monument called for in the deed, then reporting a boundary based solely on the pipe found at the corner.
Candidates memorize 'monuments control over distances' as a slogan and skip the antecedent step: identifying whether the object is the original corner, a later replacement, or a trespassing stake. The hierarchy of evidence (natural monuments, artificial monuments, courses and distances, area) only applies to evidence that matches the record call.
What to do instead
Before accepting any monument, run a documented identification test: does it match the record description in type, size, position, and age; is it referenced in prior surveys or plats; does it fall within a reasonable tolerance of the record bearing and distance; and is it undisturbed? Record the reasoning in the survey report and note rejected objects explicitly.
Computing a boundary line by inversing between two coordinate pairs and reporting the result to four decimal places of precision that the underlying control does not support.
Candidates equate calculator output with accuracy and do not propagate the uncertainty of the starting coordinates or the angular and linear misclosure of the traverse. A bearing to the nearest second derived from coordinates rounded to 0.01 ft implies precision the survey never had.
What to do instead
Carry computations at full precision but round reported values to what the controlling accuracy standard supports, and state the basis. Perform a misclosure check, adjust the traverse by a defensible method (compass rule or transit rule as appropriate), and report the positional uncertainty of the boundary corners rather than implying exactness.
Applying a grid-to-ground (scale) correction in the wrong direction, or omitting it entirely when mixing GPS-derived State Plane coordinates with ground-measured distances.
The combination factor (scale factor times elevation factor) is less than one in most North Dakota terrain, so ground distances exceed grid distances. Candidates memorize 'multiply by the combined factor' without tracking whether they are converting grid to ground or ground to grid, and sign errors survive because the discrepancy is small on short lines.
What to do instead
Write the direction of conversion on the computation sheet before touching the calculator: grid distance = ground distance times combined factor; ground distance = grid distance divided by combined factor. Verify with a known baseline, and always report which distance type (grid, ground, or surface) appears on the plat and in the description.
Using a single geoid model or ellipsoid height assumption across a project without checking that the orthometric heights and the horizontal datum epoch are consistent.
Candidates treat NAD83 and NAVD88 as fixed constants and are unaware that realized epochs (such as NAD83(2011)) and geoid models differ by decimeters to meters. Mixing an older published benchmark with a newer GNSS-derived height produces a systematic offset that looks like random error.
What to do instead
State the datum and epoch on every control report, use the current geoid model consistently, and hold published passive marks as checks rather than gospel until their epoch and adjustment are confirmed. When combining sources, compute the offset at a common check point and document it.
Selecting a photogrammetric or remote-sensing product for a boundary or topographic purpose without matching its accuracy class and resolution to the required positional tolerance.
Candidates see 'high resolution' imagery or a point cloud and assume it meets survey-grade needs, ignoring ground sample distance, horizontal and vertical accuracy statements, and the difference between relative and absolute accuracy.
What to do instead
Start from the required accuracy (for example, a stated RMSE or a confidence-level horizontal/vertical tolerance), then check the product's published accuracy against it, including control quality and check-point statistics. If the product cannot meet the tolerance, specify field survey or densified control instead.
Mixing coordinate systems, units, or datum epochs between GIS layers and survey data and treating the overlay as authoritative without checking alignment.
GIS software reprojects on the fly and silently assumes a datum transformation when none is defined, so layers shift by meters while the display looks plausible. Candidates also confuse feet, US survey feet, and meters in area and length attributes.
What to do instead
Define the coordinate reference system explicitly for every layer, verify with common control points or a known landmark, and record the transformation used. Check units in metadata and recompute areas and lengths in the stated unit rather than trusting default display values.
Setting up an instrument and beginning observations without completing a full setup check: leveling, optical plummet or laser plummet check, tribrach adjustment, and a backsight check against a known azimuth.
Candidates rush to collect data and treat the setup as trivial, but a miscentered or out-of-adjustment instrument introduces systematic error that no amount of redundant shots will reveal. The error is invisible because the observations are internally consistent.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed setup checklist: tripod stability, tribrach and circular level, plate level, plummet check by rotating 180 degrees, instrument height measurement twice, and a backsight or resection check against known control before recording any data. Document the check in field notes.
Computing earthwork volumes or cut-and-fill quantities from cross sections or a surface model without verifying the surface against field check points and without stating the method and its assumptions.
Candidates pick the software default (average end area or prismoidal) and report a number, but the volume depends heavily on surface interpolation, breaklines, and whether the existing ground surface reflects actual conditions. Small surface errors produce large volume errors over long corridors.
What to do instead
State the volume method, the surface sources, and the datum for cut and fill. Verify the existing surface with independent field shots or check points, include breaklines at grade changes, and report the volume with an explicit tolerance or comparison to a second method when the quantity is contract-critical.
Accepting an engagement or signing a survey product without confirming licensure scope, the client's identity and authority, and the intended use and reliance of the deliverable.
Candidates focus on technical execution and treat the business and ethical side as boilerplate. They miss conflicts of interest, unlicensed practice by staff, or a deliverable that will be relied upon by parties not identified in the contract.
What to do instead
Before work begins, confirm the client's authority, define the scope and intended use in writing, identify who may rely on the product, and verify that all work is performed or directly supervised within the licensed scope. Disclose conflicts and decline or clarify engagements that exceed competence or authority.
Citing North Dakota statutes or board rules from memory or from another state's framework instead of the current adopted text, and applying a general principle without checking the state-specific requirement.
Candidates study national boundary-law concepts and assume state law mirrors them, but North Dakota has its own provisions on survey standards, monumentation, platting, and board jurisdiction. Rules are amended, and an outdated recollection can be confidently wrong.
What to do instead
Study the current North Dakota Century Code chapters and board rules directly, note the section numbers for monumentation, minimum standards, and plat requirements, and check the effective date of any material. On the exam, answer from the adopted state text rather than a generic national rule.