NH Land Surveyor common mistakes
NH Land Surveyor · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating a found monument as conclusive without checking whether it is the original corner or a later replacement, and without reconciling it to the record bearings and distances before accepting it.
Candidates memorize that 'monuments control over distances' and apply it mechanically, skipping the analysis of whether the monument is undisturbed, of the original survey, and consistent with the deed call. A disturbed or reset pipe set by a later party is not the original corner and does not automatically control.
What to do instead
For every corner, build a short evidence hierarchy note: what the deed calls for, what was found, condition of the found object, bearing/distance residual to the record, and corroborating evidence (line trees, fence intersections, adjoining deed calls). Accept a monument only after the residual analysis is documented; when residuals are large relative to the survey precision, treat the monument as suspect and retrace further.
Perpetuating an angular misclosure or bearing blunder by adjusting the traverse before checking the raw field data against a known baseline or closing azimuth.
Under time pressure candidates run the adjustment routine first and only inspect residuals afterward, so a 180-degree bearing entry error or a misread backsight gets smeared across the whole traverse instead of being found and corrected at the source.
What to do instead
Before any adjustment, compute angular misclosure and compare to the allowable based on the instrument and number of setups; plot the unadjusted traverse and check each leg against record bearings. If a single leg is grossly off, re-check the field book entry for that setup. Adjust only after the blunder is located and corrected.
Mixing coordinate systems or epochs inside one computation, for example combining NH State Plane coordinates with a localized site grid, or applying a scale factor to only part of a boundary.
Candidates learn State Plane and ground coordinates as separate topics but do not internalize that every coordinate comparison must be in a single system. Grid-to-ground scale factors are omitted or applied inconsistently, producing small but legally significant offsets in boundary positions.
What to do instead
State the coordinate system and epoch at the top of every computation sheet and convert all inputs to it before combining. When working in ground coordinates, apply the combined scale factor (grid factor times elevation factor) to every grid distance or document explicitly that the work is in grid. Verify by comparing a known baseline in both systems.
Accepting a GNSS-derived position for a boundary corner without a redundant check by total station or a second independent occupation, and without documenting PDOP, fix quality, and base-to-rover baseline.
RTK fixes look authoritative on the controller screen, so candidates report coordinates as if they were survey-grade without redundancy. In canopy or near structures, multipath and float solutions can shift a position by decimeters, which matters for a corner location.
What to do instead
Require independent redundancy for every boundary position (two occupations at different times, or GNSS plus total station tie). Record satellite count, PDOP, solution type, baseline length, and check-shot residuals to a known point. Reject any position lacking a documented independent check.
Describing a boundary by bearing and distance alone when the deed or plat calls for a monument, or conversely ignoring a called monument because the computed distance 'fits better' without the monument.
Candidates conflate the rule that monuments control with the habit of computing from coordinates, and then write or interpret descriptions in whichever mode is convenient rather than following the controlling call in the record document.
What to do instead
Read the controlling description first and identify its order of calls (monument, then bearing, then distance, then area). Write descriptions that follow that hierarchy, and when interpreting, resolve conflicts in the same order. Where a monument is called for but not found, say so explicitly and explain the basis for the position used.
Assuming a right-of-way or access easement is extinguished because it is not visible on the ground or was not used for years, without checking the deed, plat, and recorded instruments for its existence and scope.
Candidates apply adverse possession or abandonment intuition to easements, but nonuse alone generally does not terminate an easement, and a prescriptive or deeded easement can persist unmarked. The scope of the easement (width, purpose, maintenance) is also often misread from a plat line.
What to do instead
Search the chain of title and plat for express easement language, then analyze scope from the granting instrument. Distinguish termination by abandonment (requires intent plus act), merger, prescription, or release. State the legal basis for any conclusion that the easement no longer burdens the parcel.
Preparing a plat that omits required elements such as the basis of bearings, area, monument ties, or the surveyor's seal and certification, or that shows a boundary inconsistent with the recorded description.
Candidates focus on the geometry and treat the plat as a drawing rather than a legal instrument, so required annotations and consistency checks against the deed are skipped.
What to do instead
Use a pre-submittal checklist derived from the applicable New Hampshire plat statutes and board rules: basis of bearings, north arrow, scale, area, adjoiner names, monument descriptions, easements, certification language, seal, and date. Cross-check every boundary line on the plat against the controlling description before signing.
Relying on an online registry index or a single deed reference instead of pulling the full chain of title, including probate, foreclosure, and municipal records, before opining on a boundary.
Digital indexes are convenient and appear complete, but they can miss unindexed instruments, marginal references, and documents recorded under variant names. Candidates stop at the first deed that matches the grantor.
What to do instead
Trace the chain back to a reliable root of title and forward to the present, checking grantor/grantee variants and marginal references. Pull probate, lien, and municipal records where relevant. Document each instrument relied on and note any gap or ambiguity in the chain.
Signing and sealing work performed or supervised by someone else, or accepting an assignment outside the surveyor's competence without disclosure, to meet a deadline.
Candidates underestimate the personal nature of the seal and the board's jurisdiction over unprofessional conduct. Pressure to deliver, or a supervising surveyor's informal request, is treated as sufficient authority.
What to do instead
Seal only work you personally performed or directly supervised and reviewed. If a task exceeds your competence, disclose the limit and obtain qualified assistance rather than signing. Keep a written record of supervision and review for each sealed document.
Failing to document client communications, scope changes, and the basis for boundary decisions, then being unable to reconstruct the reasoning when a dispute or board complaint arises.
Candidates treat documentation as administrative overhead and rely on memory or the final plat alone. When challenged months later, the evidentiary trail for monument decisions and scope changes is missing.
What to do instead
Maintain a contemporaneous project file: field notes, research log, correspondence, scope amendments, and a boundary decision memo for each corner. Date and initial entries. Treat the file as the defensible record of professional judgment, not as optional paperwork.