04/02/2026
ALS News: From the DPR - How Much…Is Too Much?
Kurt Popadynetz, ALS
Director of Practice Review
Although similar to a question that I’ve discussed before (“how far is too far?”), which dealt with accepting (or not) survey evidence that is ‘offline,’ this time I’m looking at it from a different angle. The ‘offline’ discussion can (and will) continue another day; here I’m referring to the amount of survey data or information shown on a plan.
Take a fairly typical example. A land surveyor is hired to complete a simple rural, single-lot subdivision from a quarter section. The proposed lot is adjacent and parallel to an east-west government road allowance, defined by the N¼ and NE¼ monuments. Both are found, original, and in good condition. No surprises. No road widenings. A straight-forward scenario. No “what ifs”…yet.
Should the ‘bare bones’ survey evidence be shown—in this case, the N¼ and NE¼? Well, of course. And for the record, I don’t think anyone should argue with statutory requirements.
Now here it comes.
What if the land surveyor found additional survey evidence during the course of their work? Perhaps surrounding section evidence was recovered, enough to fully quarter the section. A simple “what if.”
Although not required for the subdivision itself, should that additional information be shown on the plan?
That is ultimately up to you as the professional surveyor. It is your plan. I support the use of professional judgment, and in many cases, the inclusion of additional information is done with good intentions and can be helpful for others down the road.
However, and this is the point, once it is shown, it is no longer “additional.”
I would fully expect that additional information to be true, verified, and correct, in a manner consistent with any other information shown on the plan. Once included, it becomes part of the land surveyor’s professional opinion. It becomes part of the public record (assuming registration), and it may be relied upon by the public, clients, and other Alberta Land Surveyors.
If it is incorrect, it can introduce confusion and uncertainty, potentially leading to unwarranted liability and risk.
Typical examples are often simple: incorrect or missed bearing and distance labels, or figures that do not mathematically close when tested using the information shown on the plan. These are routinely identified through basic checks (and, yes, still a common PRB recommendation).
The point is straight-forward: if you choose to show it, verify it and be prepared to stand behind it. Otherwise, consider whether it needs to be shown at all.
And that leads directly into a broader point about professional judgment, particularly in relation to the Boundary Panel.
Over the past year, there have been several cases (more than I expected) in which matters have been submitted to the Boundary Panel with requests for review or for a panel to be convened. However, upon initial review, the issues presented are often more straight-forward than suggested. In many cases, a reasonable and supportable solution is readily available, and no true boundary uncertainty, survey error, or plan error exists. Rather, the submission appears to be seeking direction or confirmation on how to proceed.
To be clear, that is not the Boundary Panel’s role.
The Boundary Panel exists to facilitate investigations and provide recommendations to help resolve boundary uncertainties, alleged survey errors, and alleged plan errors. Within that context:
An alleged plan error involves incorrect or missing information that makes it difficult to determine the intent of the survey; and
An alleged survey error involves monuments that appear to have been placed contrary to that intent.
The process is intended for situations where the evidence is conflicting, unclear, or cannot be reasonably resolved through normal professional practice.
It is not intended to replace the professional judgment of the practicing land surveyor. It is not there to “pressure test” an opinion before committing to it. It is not there to avoid making a professional decision when one is required.
And in many cases, particularly where other surveyors are directly involved, the first step should be simple: talk to each other. If opinions are genuinely being sought, there is value in starting with the surveyor who has already worked in the area; someone who has, quite literally, walked the same ground.
A snapshot of the Practice Review Board’s activity over the past quarter:
Quarterly PRB Snapshot: two meetings held; January 14 & February 25, 2026 Continuing Competency Review: Phase 4 (As of February 19, 2026)
CCR Reports Reviewed: 18
Comprehensive Reviews Scheduled: 0
Special In-Person Meeting Completed: 1
Plan Corrections Requested: 2
Commendations Issued: 20
Files Scheduled for Early Phase 5 Review: 0
Files opened: 390
Files closed: 31
Files yet to be reviewed: 75
Files reviewed by the PRB and still open: 6
Files left to open: 12
PRB recommendations/commendations included variations of:
- Commends you for your well-prepared plan.
- Commends you on your work towards finalizing and registering your dormant plans.
- Commends you for your good field notes.
- Encourages you to consider showing all the information recorded in the field notes on future survey plans, including the locations of lost evidence or Found No Mark positions where searches were conducted.
- Expects that you will conduct field inspections as part of your staff training program. The PRB expects all ALSs to complete at least one field inspection per year.
- Expects you to increase your participation in formal educational activities. The PRB expects every ALS to spend at least eight ( 8 ) hours per year on formal educational activities and at least twenty (20) hours per year on informal educational activities.
- Encourages you to improve your plan checking process to ensure that the comments recorded in the field notes are transferred correctly to the plan, including conditions of monuments.
- Encourages you to file an ASCM Condition Report for ASCMs which appear damaged or whose coordinates do not match the published data. See MSP, Part B Section 3.12.
- Encourages you to communicate with other land surveyors to discuss and resolve discrepancies when you notice them.
https://www.alsa.ab.ca/weekly-news/post/als-news-from-the-dpr-how-much-is-too-much
