-
California Lot Merger
OK, I know I just got through saying that I ask CA questions on the CA message board. I’m not getting an answer over there, though, so I’ll try here.
My client wants to merge his two parcels so he can add on to his house. The City seems clueless about their own procedures, but I’ve kind of gotten them on the right track with processing the merger. Long story that’s kind of interesting but doesn’t have much to do with my current question.
The City is now saying they’ll process the merger if the client gives them 6 feet of additional road right of way. I don’t think they can require that as a condition of approval of a merger, but I can’t seem to find a statute to prove that to them.
In the City’s handout of instructions for merger, it says the owner may be required to dedicate and/or abandon easements. I’m just not sure it’s legal for them to require a dedication without compensation. They do it all the time on land divisions, but they at least have the excuse that additional lots are being created and thereby creating a need for wider roads. I don’t see how a merger creates a need for a road widening. The City just wants it and they see this as a way to get it for free.
-
12 Replies
-
It’s called blackmail – plain and simple. Happens all the time in Virginia as well. They will claim that their approval is the comensation. Sure your client could try to make a point of it, but is it worth the time, trouble & lots of legal expense?
-
You probably won’t find an answer from the surveyors, I think it’s a legal issue. I’m not a California attorney, but to get an answer you would have to go to an attorney. You could start with the city’s attorney, and just ask “because you’re curious”. Usually city or county ordinances are run by their attorney. It might be that there’s no specific case law or statute on the matter. I believe the reasoning is that the city has decided that the r-o-w is substandard and they will get the additional r-o-w this way.
Now I agree it sounds like blackmail, but does your client want to spend the money to fight the battle? Does your client want to risk ruining their relationship with the city?
-
Platting authorities have the powers given to them by ordinance or code, and usually wield a power to require dedicaiton for the good of the public, or to comply with comprehensive plans or engineering standards. Blackmail is a bit harsh, but they are the approving body, and if its in their power, you likely have no recourse. You pays your dues to get approval to comply with these duties(?) / desires of the platting authority. Most times, their decisions are apeallable to a higher body like a County Board of Supervisors or Assmebly, but you have to watch your relationship with the planning department making the recommendations if you appeal their recommendations if you have to bring future platting requests to them for approval.
-
Good idea about talking to a lawyer. I’m doing a favor for a good land use/real estate attorney today (just copying a big set of plans for him) and I’ll run this by him this afternoon.
The rest of the story (if you care): This poor client has been trying to get this done since last October. He did everything they listed in their instructions for merger and came to me just for the simple description and plat of the merged parcel. Months go by and I figure it’s a done deal.
Then the client comes in with a handwritten note to me from the City Engineering Dept. The note reads “Steve-The City is comfortable doing this as a lot line adjustment to move the lot line colinear with the eastern lot line. Please call to discuss.” This was in May. I called to discuss three times and after 6 weeks, the City guy calls back. I ask him if this makes any sense to him. He says no, but that’s what the City Engineer decided.
I pulled out my file and found the City’s instructions for merger and emailed the City guy asking why they want to do a lot line adjustment instead of a merger according to their own published procedures. Another ten days go by and I get an email back from him that they can move forward with the merger if I complete the merger form showing the requested easement. For one thing, if the client decides to grant the easement, it’s going to have to be a whole separate document and approved and accepted by City Council (according to their own instruction packet again). I can’t just “show the easement” on the merger form.
For another thing, what kind of cockamamy idea is it to move the line you want to get rid of “colinear” with the other line. How would you describe that easterly parcel: “Beginning at the northeast corner; thence going nowhere. Containing nothing.”
Aaaarrrgghhh!
-
Seem like you guys are WAY OVER REGULATED!!!!
Here it would be a simple boundary (with structures shown) or permimeter plan. The interior lilne would be dashed with a note “line to be expunged” and the plan taken to an attorney. The attorney would then convey the parcels out per old description, and then back in with the recorded plan as the reference.
Done Deal….
What does the municipality have to do with any of this?
I have been reading a bunch about CA laws re: survey plans. It makes me wonder how y’all can do any business when you are overseen by bureaucrats!
-
Steve, could you turn it into a ‘reversion to acreage’? Did a reversion with a couple of adjacent lots I bought several years ago up in Humboldt Co. Got tried of paying double taxes. Signed some paper, paid some fee and prestolla, I have one lot.
-
Sean – That area of the Subdivision Map Act is confusing to me. These are deeded parcels, not platted parcels/lots if that makes a difference.
-
Good question.
Went to a lecture where Dave Woolley was kinda fond of an instrument called ‘Encroachment Easement’. That might be something to think about too. Paper/Fee.
-
What does your state laws say about municiple powers for widening streets? (You may have to read them backwards),
There are legal procedures that are spelled out in the section of the statutes delegating powers to the municipality.
You may want to ask the city attorney/county corp. counsel what problems they would face if a good lawyer charged them with extortion.
Richard Schaut
-
That’s what my lawyer friend told me this afternoon (well, without the extortion part). I’ll just politely ask them by what authority they can require a dedication as a condition of approval of a merger. With land divisions, the courts have determined that there is a nexus between the creation of new parcels and a need for wider roads. A merger actually creates less traffic, so no such nexus can be asserted. At some point, the property owner might just say he’ll give them the dang right of way to get on with his life. I just hate to see him do that when the City should have to pay him for it like they would anybody else sitting there minding their own business.
-
Steve,
Mike Durkee comments about these types of scenarios at his SMA workshops quite often. You are on the right track. I’d ask them about the nexus of a simple merger and how that action requires the widening of a road (granting of an easement)as well as the “Rough proportionality” of the action sought and their requirements. The fortuitous location of the property itself should not require the granting of an easement. It sounds like a “take” to me. -
Merger Update
I emailed the City guy this morning and politely asked by what authority they were requiring a dedication without compensation as a condition of approval of a merger.
He emailed back this afternoon and said “Steve, You are correct, the City cannot force the dedication. At the City Engineer’s direction, I discussed the easement with [property owner] when I met with him. He seemed to be okay with it. Can you check with [property owner]?
I plan to email him back and tell him the property owner can dedicate the easement if he wants, but I can’t recommend that he do that if he would be compensated for it in the future. I don’t know this for a fact, but I don’t imagine that the dedication idea was presented to the property owner as optional. I know it wasn’t in their correspondence with me. The fact that they would have to eventually buy it from the owner in the future was likely not mentioned either.
Log in to reply.