A lot in a subdivision is owned by a party. The City vacates an alley that adjoins the lot. The lot owner gets up to the centerline of the alley as it adjoins his lot. The owner sells the lot and does not include his/her portion of the alleyway in the deed.
Does the ownership of the alley automatically transfer with title to the lot, or does the previous owner of the lot still maintain ownership of the alley portion?
It would automatically transfer here (and most places) as it's considered an appurtenance to the property (similar to an off-site easement). The appurtenance stems from the reversionary interest in the alley while it still existed. The boundary of the lot is considered to always include the half-width.
The alley may still be subject to private easements to other lots adjoining the alleyway. The public vacation only vacates the public's right, not private rights which may remain.
JBS
I agree
Those would be fair statements in Virginia. We agree!
Yes, unless it's specifically excluded in the deed.
i will agree but i will also add that there are several lawyers who would disagree, namely those under retainer by persons with a potential interest in the alley.
Here is a note from a recent plat that includes a reference to a Colorado statute you might fined interesting. The (d) portion was added to CRS in 2005.
The error in the vesting deed is acknowledged however the vacated south half of
Pabor Avenue is included in this plat with reference to C.R.S. 38-30-113 (1)(d) which
states: Every deed in substance in the above form, when properly executed, shall be a conveyance of the grantor's interest, if any, in any vacated street, alley, or other right-of-way that adjoins the real property unless the transfer of such interest is expressly excluded in the deed.
Thanks all. It is as I thought it would probably be, but have not dealt with vacated alleys much to speak of. I should have looked up the statutes. Thank you Mr. Scott.
I might have a problem, and better look into this specific one more.