Hello! ?ÿI stumbled across this site while I was researching the early days of the Subdivision Map Act. ?ÿI am involved in research and am researching a subdivision that was created in 1924 and offered, dedicated and accepted by the County with all the attendant attestations from the developer/subdivider, notary for same, Bank notary, County Auditor signature, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, and County Auditor and Assessor saying the subdivision is valuable for summer residences and camp sites. ?ÿThat was in 1924. ?ÿToday, it is home to full time and part time residents in houses. ?ÿ ?ÿI'm trying to jive up what was the standard for subdivision acceptance according to the SMA in 1924, before the 1929 change and how to interpret the 2003 Supreme Court decision in the 2003 Supreme Court decision in Gardner vs County of Sonoma: ?ÿ"The California Supreme Court's decision in?ÿGardner v County of Sonoma?ÿ(2003) 29 C4th 990, leaves open the question of whether maps filed before 1929 can create legal lots.?ÿThis date is significant because it was not until the 1929 amendments to the Subdivision Map Act that cities and counties were given authority to regulate subdivisions."
Anyone? ?ÿBuhler? ?ÿ Buhler?
?ÿ
TIA!
Have you reached out to the County Surveyors Committee for CEAC (County Engineers Association of California)? I believe you can email the Chair of that committee.
The Gardner case spoke to lots shown on an "antiquated map" (filed prior to the enactment of the first Subdivision Map Act in 1893) that were not simultaneously created and only valid if sold by reference to the map. A subsequent case, Witt Home Ranch, Inc. v. County of Sonoma, 165 Cal. App. 4th 543 (2008) spoke to maps filed prior to the enactment of the 1929 SMA - which provided for the "grandfathering" of those subdivision maps which had been reviewed by the local agency for orderly development.
What is key to the early subdivision maps is that lots sold by reference to the filed map are to be considered compliant, but the remaining unsold lots are considered as unified parcels.
@ric-moore, thank you for the reply! I'm not a surveyor...just a mere mortal. Would I have access to the CEAC and their Surveyor's Committee? -Tina
@warren-smith, thank you for your reply! Please feel free to share more - you have my attention! -Tina
Another case, Abernathy Valley, Inc v. County of Solano, 173 Cal. App. 4th 42 (2009) addressed the issue of maps filed prior to the enactment of Government Code section 66499.30 [grandfathered lots] where the key determination is whether the local agency regulated the "design and improvement" of subdivisions at the time.
And, for federal patents, John Taft Corp. v. Advisory Agency, 161 Cal. App. 3d 749 (1984) referred to the depiction of Government Lots on a Township Plat not creating separate lots - only the subsequent transfer to different parties (prior to March 4, 1972) would effect that creation.
@warren-smith, thank you. Thank you all - this input has been useful! Signing out....
