In D'Andrea v. Pringle (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 689, the foundation of defendant's building crossed the plaintiff's property line, causing an encroachment at ground level. While the foundation was being excavated, the plaintiff told defendant's construction foreman that they had crossed his property line. The plaintiff measured his lot and confirmed the encroachment, and again told the foreman to stop the work. The plaintiff then had the property surveyed, which confirmed the encroachment, and provided that information to the foreman. When construction continued, plaintiff's lawyer sent a letter to the defendant advising him of the encroachment and warning that he continued construction at his own peril. The defendant did not respond to that letter and instead continued construction. The defendant testified that he had a surveyor determine the property line before construction began. After both his foreman and the plaintiff told him about the encroachment, the defendant contacted his surveyor, who confirmed his original survey results. The D'Andrea trial court found that the rear wall of the defendant's building was over the property line by eight to 14 inches over a length of 83 feet. However, it refused to enjoin the encroachment and instead awarded the defendant an equitable easement in exchange for the payment of $ 1,500. On appeal, the D'Andrea court reversed because the trial court failed to make a factual finding that the defendant's encroachment was innocent or in good faith. The trial court did find that the defendant's survey was hampered because boundary monuments had been removed long ago, that the defendant's encroachment was based on the independent survey, and that the defendant had been on notice that he was building over the property line despite the plaintiff's objections. A finding of innocence could not be based on those findings, the D'Andrea court held. A finding that plaintiff continued to build even after receiving notice of the encroachment "suggests a lack of good faith," the court held. (D'Andrea, supra, 243 Cal.App.2d at p. 698.) A finding that the boundary monuments were missing would not support a finding of good faith without a finding that the resulting difficulty in surveying induced an unintentional encroachment. (Ibid.) "Finally, the fact that the act of encroachment was based on the survey of a licensed surveyor in and of itself does not compel or warrant the conclusion that the defendant acted innocently or in good faith in view of the finding that he was put on notice by plaintiffs prior to the construction that he was encroaching on their land and the finding that the defendant did in fact encroach thereon. If such were the case a defendant in an encroachment action could always establish good faith by showing that he proceeded on the basis of an independent survey." (Ibid.)