Board discusses land‑survey statute mismatch with DCP and rising reports of unlicensed survey work

Board members and staff told the State Board of Examiners for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors they are pursuing a legal review to reconcile differences between state statute and Department of Consumer Protection (DCP) licensing requirements for land surveyors, and discussed frequent complaints about unlicensed providers submitting survey‑style work to state agencies.

Susan (board member) reported on recent meetings with DCP staff — including Jane Hardy, license and application specialist, Michael Elliott, director of licensing, and the board’s legal representative — and said DCP will help arrange a meeting with the legal department to align statute and application requirements. Susan told the board that the DCP application requirements currently differ from state statute in notable ways: the transcript records a difference that was described as “statute says you only need six years to be a licensed land surveyor and DCP is 9 years,” and the board said statute must control.

Susan said she will meet with officials at CALS (the Connecticut Association of Land Surveyors) and a consultant attorney who has worked on surveying statutes to help draft needed changes or an addendum to the existing state statutory compilation for surveying. Board members offered to attend the planned meeting with DCP legal staff to expedite aligning statute and regulatory/application practice.

The board also discussed recurring complaints about unlicensed individuals doing hydrographic or drone‑based “survey” work, then delivering and sometimes editing licensed surveyors’ maps to produce competing documents submitted to state agencies such as the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP). Board members said those submissions can create enforcement and public‑safety risks and undermine licensed professionals.

Investigative staff advised that consumers often misunderstand the complaint process: many complainants are neighbors disputing a licensed surveyor’s results, not the client who hired the surveyor. The investigator said the office received three new complaints in the reporting period (July 1–Aug. 31, 2025) and closed none; she asked complainants to file through DCP’s online complaint center so investigators can track unlicensed practice allegations.

Members urged complainants to file formal written complaints so DCP investigators can take action; staff reiterated that the board’s disciplinary authority is limited when practitioners are unlicensed and that stronger enforcement or statutory changes may be needed. A board member suggested educating state agencies (for example, DEEP) to decline or disregard survey evidence from unlicensed providers.

Why it matters: Differences between statute and agency practice affect application outcomes for land surveyors and clarity for applicants; unlicensed practice raises professional‑practice and public‑safety concerns and requires clear complaint and enforcement paths.