Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Strictly Surveying › Spite Strip
Spite Strip
Posted by Mark Mayer on July 26, 2017 at 6:07 pmPlat recorded in 1994 creates Tract A, an “Access Control Strip” across the end of the dedicated street. A note on the face of the plat says that Tract A is to be deeded to the city. But, apparently, said deed exchange never happened. The owner of the property to the north now wishes to develop by hooking onto the existing road. The owner of the 1 foot spite strip wants $15k for it. The city has no interest in getting involved.
I’m wondering if the statement on the face of the plat that the land was to be deeded to the city is somehow binding, or if a spite strip of this sort is even legal.
mike-berry replied 6 years, 9 months ago 16 Members · 35 Replies- 35 Replies
Had a client attempt that around his subdivisions in the early 1980s.
Texas declared that was illegal to block access by creating a narrow strip of property.If the spite strip exists solely as a separate parcel, it should have been identified as a lot when the plat creating same was developed. Where I come from, planning and zoning should have realized same and should not have allowed creation of that strip…. unless… the strip was connected to a part of a larger lot, where that lot was of acceptable size for recordation. Would consider having the City assume it into the right of way… you know, with lawyers and such.
Did the City have platting authority and approve the plat? If both the City and the Spite Strip Owner signed the plat, it seems to me that would weaken his claim on the Spite Strip, and Note 4 would act as a sort of Implied Dedication.
Bizarre, to say the least. However, there should be a legal way to create such a limiter to freeloading by an adjoiner. I could picture ways to establish subdivisions where the tract being subdivided does not coincide with the outer boundary of land owned by the subdivider. That provides a similar protection, but in a far less obvious manner.
The Plat was filed and is on record. The city is the record owner of the street whether a deed was proffered or not. By record language the claimed owner is estopped from preventing it’s use as a street. The street in it’s totality is dedicated to the public. That the city does not have title to that one foot merely puts the burden of constructing that one foot of roadway on the prior developer.
23 years of not paying taxes on that 1′ parcel can negate any claim of ownership.
The best the claimed owner can expect is that the new developer offers to pay for the 1′ of street and the removal and restoration of any temporary turnaround.
Have fun.
Paul in PA
Holy Cow, post: 438731, member: 50 wrote: However, there should be a legal way to create such a limiter to freeloading by an adjoiner.
I did find a case in Oregon in which the court discusses how virtually every subdivision ties onto the improvements from some earlier subdivision in some way. That case stated that the county was within it’s rights to require the removal of a proposed spite strip as a condition of approval. It did not address the legality of an existing spite strip.
The simple solution is to have no streets ending at exteriors of the subdivision except where essential to meet existing streets.
Holy Cow, post: 438735, member: 50 wrote: The simple solution is to have no streets ending at exteriors of the subdivision except where essential to meet existing streets.
That is the voice of experience.
However it appears to be experience in rural areas where there is no comprehensive land use planning. 😉 Around here, if the municipality master planning documents anticipate residential grown in adjoining parcels, then stubbing the road network to the parcel exterior is a requirement.
Given where Mark practices, and the fact that the intent was for the city to own the strip, I guess the original plan was to extend the road into the adjoiner if it was developed for residential use, but at the time the plat was recorded the use was one that was incompatible with having access through a residential road network.
We looked into spite strips in
Texas in 03 and found nothing that made them illegal. Doctrine of strips and gores sometimes confuses the issue but it operates on a presumption absent evidence to the contrary that a grantor did not intend to keep a useless strip of land. When it’s stated that the grantor intends to keep his strip, the presumption falls apart.ComerPEPLS, post: 438725, member: 3790 wrote: If the spite strip exists solely as a separate parcel, it should have been identified as a lot when the plat creating same was developed. Where I come from, planning and zoning should have realized same and should not have allowed creation of that strip…. unless… the strip was connected to a part of a larger lot, where that lot was of acceptable size for recordation. Would consider having the City assume it into the right of way… you know, with lawyers and such.
But it was identified as a 50 s.f. lot called “tract A”.
Holy Cow, post: 438735, member: 50 wrote: The simple solution is to have no streets ending at exteriors of the subdivision except where essential to meet existing streets.
But the city/county/Bourough usually requires through dedication. If they didn’t we would really be screwed.
ComerPEPLS, post: 438725, member: 3790 wrote: If the spite strip exists solely as a separate parcel, it should have been identified as a lot …
It is quite common to have these “Tracts” among the lots in an Oregon subdivision plat. Tracts are used to set aside areas for storm water retention and the like.
Why should the first subdivider be forced to make later competitors have an easier (thus more profitable) task? The first subdivider should be rewarded in some fashion, not punished.
Oregon must look at these things differently. If the road was “dedicated” to the public and the adjacent strip (Tract) “deeded” to the City wouldn’t that be one in the same? If no deed is recovered/recorded for Tract A, wouldn’t the City have an implied easement over said Tract?
I have seen strips like this. Typically they were utilized as a way to collect “connection fees” for utilities and infrastructure associated with the development. The strips that I have seen fall into this category. Most likely ownership of Tract A had gone back to the County because of unpaid taxes whereupon its auctioned off to an attorney who demands compensation from those who are either using the area or need to use it.
In this case the intent was clear that the “Tract” was created in order for the developer to stop short of the neighboring property with road and utilities. Normal if the neighbor will not grant an easement or pay connection fees. In this case, that easement costs about 15K. I suggest, pay the man.
Question though. Is the current owner of the Tract A the same as the original owner in 1994? Is the engineer/surveyor from 1994 still around?Holy Cow, post: 438766, member: 50 wrote: Why should the first subdivider be forced to make later competitors have an easier (thus more profitable) task? The first subdivider should be rewarded in some fashion, not punished.
Why should the first subdivider be allowed to make a future subdivision impossible?
There is a happy middle ground somewhere that balances the subdivider property rights and the rights of others in the community to be able to grow their community in a sane manner.
Daniel Ralph, post: 438788, member: 8817 wrote: Oregon must look at these things differently. If the road was “dedicated” to the public and the adjacent strip (Tract) “deeded” to the City wouldn’t that be one in the same? If no deed is recovered/recorded for Tract A, wouldn’t the City have an implied easement over said Tract?
I have seen strips like this. Typically they were utilized as a way to collect “connection fees” for utilities and infrastructure associated with the development. The strips that I have seen fall into this category. Most likely ownership of Tract A had gone back to the County because of unpaid taxes whereupon its auctioned off to an attorney who demands compensation from those who are either using the area or need to use it.
In this case the intent was clear that the “Tract” was created in order for the developer to stop short of the neighboring property with road and utilities. Normal if the neighbor will not grant an easement or pay connection fees. In this case, that easement costs about 15K. I suggest, pay the man.
Question though. Is the current owner of the Tract A the same as the original owner in 1994? Is the engineer/surveyor from 1994 still around?Why would there be an implied easement? You can’t just assume the sbdivider forgot to write the deed. He may have changed his mind, or maybe the town refused to accept it. If he had wanted the Tract to be a ROW there was no reason to create the Tract. Untill the Tract is granted and the grant is accepted there is no transfer.
There is a case about this somewhere…
Mark Mayer, post: 438721, member: 424 wrote: Plat recorded in 1994 creates Tract A, an “Access Control Strip” across the end of the dedicated street. A note on the face of the plat says that Tract A is to be deeded to the city. But, apparently, said deed exchange never happened. The owner of the property to the north now wishes to develop by hooking onto the existing road. The owner of the 1 foot spite strip wants $15k for it. The city has no interest in getting involved.
I’m wondering if the statement on the face of the plat that the land was to be deeded to the city is somehow binding, or if a spite strip of this sort is even legal.
Okay, so the facts are that the land was merely dedicated to the city, which (if this were in Texas, which it is not) I would take to mean that the fee title vested in the owners of the adjacent lots subject only to the public easement. The question (in Texas) then would be whether the original subdivider, having sold the lots and divested himself of the fee title to the land in the street and having dedicated all of the strip to the public use, except for some “Access Control Strip” has any interest remaining to convey. I’d think that the answer is probably not, quite apart from what the courts in your jurisdiction may have held on the subject of such strips.
Mark- those have vexed us east of the mountains for years. Fortunately Reserve Strips disappeared off plats in my area by the mid 1980s, but the damage had been done. Most were NOT correctly dedicated to the governing body and once the fubar comes to light the title companies have determined the strips are still owned by the original developer of the subdivision. And then, like your situation, the reserve strips become the most valuable property on earth.
Log in to reply.