I had a client a few years ago who hired me to survey her 11 contiguous lots in 1 block of an 1890's platted town. The platting of the town is obvious that they didn't consider the terrain as lots are laid out on cliff faces and not buildable as well as roads going straight up a cliff or mountain side.
This client wanted to sell 4 of her lots to an adjoiner on the west and up on top of the mesa. Up on top there is ground level enough to build on and he would have better use of the land than her. He already has a house built on his 4 lots.
The town has a 2 lot minimum for issuing building permits or 5000 sq.ft. and nothing greater than a 20% slope. This is not the issue.
I just found out that my former client had to go thru town approval to sell the 4 lots to the adjoiner. I've never come across this before. Have any of you? Is this "Abusive Municipal Authority" or what? By hearsay, the town has also placed a restriction on the 4 lots to never be built on. It was a condition of the approval.
I've had clients sell a lot to an adjoiner because of a garage being built across the lot line and didn't ask for city approval. I have always thought that if it was previously platted, you could sell off 1 lot at a time if you wanted. It's not an illegal subdivision. It's already been subdivided. If it doesn't meet the minimum area for building permit, then you don't build on it.
How do these people get elected into office when they have no clue?
SD
I have had municipalities tell clients the same thing. Usually a phone call takes care of it. Unity of Title does not extinguish platted lines or easements. If it did lot lines and easements would disappear 1 second after platting...
SD-
We send persons to school to become only 'planners', not surveyors who are planners.
Some come out with their common sense intact.
Others, having not looked at the big picture, Not So Much.
It's great to be told by a "town boy/girl NSM" how to deal with existing situations in the rural interface.
I have not participated yet in a case where the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_98f01_e.htm was waved in the faces of 'decision makers', but it is getting close.
Instead of recognising what existing uses are alive and well and stuffing it in a reciprocal by-law that will be registered on title, and the license/by-law route is used regularly, we have a system here where the 'NSM planner' contacts the client rather than the client's planner, me and screws up, leaving the 'elected ones' a political miasma!
Rant off.
YOS
Derek
I get it all the time, especially on exempt plats. NC exempted certain divisions of land from subdivision regulations but many planners and zoning regulations try and regulate them anyways.
non-develoment restrictions
> By hearsay, the town has also placed a restriction on the 4 lots to never be built on. It was a condition of the approval.
First off, I guess everybody has a city department that feels like they can impress their wishes and desires on the public. You have my sympathy.
Second, the restriction of non-development has been contested many times and usually loses. Unless, of course, there exists a public safety issue.
There are two court rulings (that I can't quote case numbers right now) that come to mind. One has to do with a city planning and zoning department that "requires" additional easements, public walkways or some kind of favor before they will approve development. That has been determined "graft" or "payoff" for approval.
The other (I believe it was a SCOTUS case) rules that a governing body cannot prevent the actual titled owner from use of the property. The ruling states that for an institution to actually deny someone the right to use their property, the governing body would actually have to own the property. Those are rights that are reserved for titled fee.
These of course are general rules. Cities and towns can make life miserable with their zonings and ordinances. Most of us regular Joes just don't have the money to fight City Hall.
non-develoment restrictions
> The other (I believe it was a SCOTUS case) rules that a governing body cannot prevent the actual titled owner from use of the property. The ruling states that for an institution to actually deny someone the right to use their property, the governing body would actually have to own the property. Those are rights that are reserved for titled fee.
>
> These of course are general rules. Cities and towns can make life miserable with their zonings and ordinances. Most of us regular Joes just don't have the money to fight City Hall.
Sort of have that type of issue with a current project. Or potentially an issue. Owners are consolidating 2 lots into 1 parcel. Street side has easements for Street and Right of Way purposes of 10'. The southerly adjoiner used a grant deed to convey 10'. City has underlying fee to the adjoiner part of the road, but not my clients portion. Which puts a 'funny' jog in the Right of Way lines. City still has right to use per the easement. Just not title to it.
Not sure how well this is going to be received when they see it. Betting they will want something.....
In California, her property would most likely be considered one single lot since the platted parcels were created before 1913, unless the property had differing owners since it's creation.
I had to do a lot line adjustment for a property created around 1860 and had to have title pulled to verify the parcels were under separate ownership at a previous time or a Parcel Map would have been required because it would be a new division of land.
Brad Luken, LS
(AZ, CA, NV & OR)
I feel terribly sorry for everyone who lives in those crazy places where "Anyone Else" seems to be more important than "The Owner".
We must still be in the wild, wild west because there is very little such harassment going on around here.
If your neighbor needs to buy a wedge out of your lots....no big deal, except in a few of the bigger cities. Even then, most of the time they will sign off on it once a couple of hoops have been jumped through. You may own 10 lots but they are 10 individual lots, not a "parcel" or some other term. In rare cases a landowner may attempt to get a municipality to designate a group of contiguous lots such that it is considered to be a single address instead of several addresses. Had this come up a few months ago for a pharmacy owner planning to build a new building next to the one he has operated from for many years. There is something in pharmacy-related laws that makes changing addresses a humongous and expensive hurdle.
I have been made aware of a few places where construction of habitable buildings above a specific elevation is not allowed. It wouldn't matter how the land is split, a building permit would not be issued for anything to be built above that elevation. Apparently this is a water pressure issue sort of thing.
> I feel terribly sorry for everyone who lives in those crazy places where "Anyone Else" seems to be more important than "The Owner".
Mr Cow, those are some ultimate words of wisdom. Then again, we would expect nothing less... 😉
All those rule/zoning changes that impact seemingly innocent buyers of these paper lots, does not negate the chain of title and the fact that they still do exist on their own. It is a unique and well defined parcel of land. (surveyable??? who knows)
That is where all the Community Development Services Departments (AKA Planning/Zoning) get their self inflicted authority from. I do believe that the courts have trumped some of their decisions as just wrong. The lots still exist as a separate parcel (lot). If the assessor wishes to combine them for taxation purposes, so be it - but they are still independent lots.
The zoners can make all the setback and/or area requirement they want, and I think they are enforceable. But the owner can, and should be allowed, to sell 4 or 6 lots they own, regardless of any zoning. If the buyer doesn't want it, then keep looking.
The assessor then gains another parcel to tax. That's the perplexing part - it's in their advantage to cooperate.