California Subdivision Map Act - Historical Versions

On the CLSA website, log in to the Members only section.

Click Member Resources and the on the Right side click SMA's and PLS's and you can get at least the last 40 years of them. If you need earlier than that, I don't know.

Thanks Ryan,

I didn't know that existed. Unfortunately I need the SMA from the early 1950's.

Dylan

When Mike Emmons was County Surveyor for Santa Barbara County he compiled a complete history of the SMA and I'm sure he would have more info. You may want to check with Steve Steinhoff or Dave Ryan as they are both active with CEAC (County Surveyors Policy Committee) and they may have some of that information. The Board doesn't have them back that far.

Thanks Ric, I'll pursue those leads.

I'm not familiar with California in particular, but if you go to a law library you will generally find the state laws in book form - typically many volumes. And there will always be older sets of those statutes. Bigger libraries will have the same for many states. Whether the library you go to has them going back to the 1950.'s or not depends on space, I suppose.

I found this information in the 1980 SMA

The Subdivision Map Act was originally a part of the Business &
Professions Code until it was recodified into the Government Code, effective
March 1, 1975, through provisions of SB 977, Chapter 1536,
Statutes of 1974. The effective date for recodification was delayed until
March 1, 1975 in order to give cities and counties sufficient time to
conform tlteir local ordinances to the new law. In the meantime some
problem areas occurred with interpretations of the new law, and it
became necessary to further clarify those provisions in question, especially
the status of maps approved prior to March 1, 1975 under provisions of
the old Subdivision Map Act. As a result, SB 39 was introduced during
the 1975-76 Legislative Session to permit the necessary amendments to
be made. It was subsequently enacted by the Legislature and signed by
the Governor, as an Urgency Statute, on April 4, 1975, becoming law
the same day (Chapter 24, Statutes of 1975).

The Assembly clerk has all the California Statute Books online (arranged year and chapter). This way you can read historical laws. One way is to look up the Annotated Code which will often have references to historical statutes by year and chapter.

The clerk doesn't advertise it or even make it easy to find on their website, a state law librarian showed it to me.

http://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/archive-list?archive_type=statutes

I might be able to come up Mike Emmons research next week if no one finds it sooner

Dylan,

Look at the LS Act portions of the link Ryan is referring to on the CLSA members only site. The Subdivision Act used to be combined with the LS Act in the B&P code. Much of the historic amendments to the SMA/B&P code are included in the LS Act file for the years 1891-1961. Note that file actually contains the amendments which occurred up and until the SMA was moved to the Gov't Code in entirety.

Hope this helps.

BTW, do you have any specific questions you are seeking to get answered? There are a lot of "clarifications" of the SMA that occurred via case law. I may be able to provide some guidance in that regards if you want to be more specific as to your question.

The jurisdiction that I'm working in has requested a copy of the SMA in effect during 1954 and 1955 in order to evaluate a Certificate of Compliance application. Two contiguous parcels were acquired by one person from two different sellers. A house was built upon the two parcels. My client wants to remove the house, and have two separate parcels. The jurisdiction says no, you have one legal lot. The lots were never merged.

> The jurisdiction that I'm working in has requested a copy of the SMA in effect during 1954 and 1955 in order to evaluate a Certificate of Compliance application. Two contiguous parcels were acquired by one person from two different sellers. A house was built upon the two parcels. My client wants to remove the house, and have two separate parcels. The jurisdiction says no, you have one legal lot. The lots were never merged.

Dylan,

The map act from the 1950's is, in my opinion, unnecessary.

Although you haven't given the background chain of title on these parcels and whether they were deed splits, map splits or what other issue specifics may apply, the course of action which may be worth pursuing is as follows. One part is found in Section 66412.6 of the current SMA, the pertinent section thereof which states:

"66412.6.
(a) For purposes of this division or of a local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto, any parcel created prior to March 4, 1972, shall be conclusively presumed to have been lawfully created if the parcel resulted from a division of land in which fewer than five parcels were created and if at the time of the creation of the parcel, there was no local ordinance in effect which regulated divisions of land creating fewer than five parcels."

Also, of note is Section 66451.10(a) which states:

"66451.10.
(a) Notwithstanding Section 66424, except as is otherwise provided for in this article, two or more contiguous parcels or units of land which have been created under the provisions of this division, or any prior law regulating the division of land, or a local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto, or which were not subject to those provisions at the time of their creation, shall not be deemed merged by virtue of the fact that the contiguous parcels or units are held by the same owner, and no further proceeding under the provisions of this division or a local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto shall be required for the purpose of sale, lease, or financing of the contiguous parcels or units, or any of them."

One other item of note that may have bearing, depending on your situation specifics, is that portion of the Civil Code which states:

"1093.
Absent the express written statement of the grantor contained therein, the consolidation of separate and distinct legal descriptions of real property contained in one or more deeds, mortgages, patents, deeds of trust, contracts of sale, or other instruments of conveyance or security documents, into a subsequent single deed, mortgage, patent, deed of trust, contract of sale, or other instrument of conveyance or security document (whether by means of an individual listing of the legal descriptions in a subsequent single instrument of conveyance or security document, or by means of a consolidated legal description comprised of more than one previously separate and distinct legal description), does not operate in any manner to alter or affect the separate and distinct nature of the real property so described in the subsequent single instrument of conveyance or security document containing either the listing of or the consolidated legal description of the parcels so conveyed or secured thereby."

Also Of interest is CA AG Opinion 81-406. Although out of date and even though the SMA has been modified significantly on this issue, it does provide insight as to interpretation of what was then Section 66424.2 (language now found in 66451.10).

I appreciate the insight and advice you are passing along to Dylan. All very good information. I hope it helps him.

This thread has been helpful even being 8 years old.  We are trying to get a Certificate of Compliance, as requested by the County.  Our city is saying we don't qualify due to an ordinance passed in 1960 in connection with section 11530 of the Subdivision Map Act of the time, apparently 1960.  This is how I found this thread.

We have found that the ordinance has some irregularities in that the County Engineer is hereby designated as the County Engineer.  We have had 3 Engineers out and an two architect/developer say we have two legal lots.  But the ordinance says the town council would have had to have approved the subdivision.

We have two grant deeds, one issued in 1965 and the second in 1967.  The house we purchased was on a 1.55 acre parcel.  The developer who lived in this house sold it to us.  The parcel was subdivided in 1960-61 which is referenced in both our deeds. 

The developer did a redivision in 1964 with the county but this wasn't apparently approved by the city.  Since we didn't buy the whole parcel, the developer moved a barn on the north side of the property to build our garage and then built a house on that side.  In 1967, we were issued our 2nd grant deed for approximately 2200 square feet.  On the same day, the new house next to us was granted a deed, again using the original 1960-61 subdivsion, not the 1964 resubdivision.  The property descriptions of all three grant deeds seem to reference the 1964 resubdivision.  So all three grant deeds use this subdivision.  Our property is 1.05 acres and the other property is .5 acres.  

We have no record of why the developer needed that 2200 square foot parcel to build the house; we do have verbal recounts of why.  The city apparently has no permits.  I am researching with the County archives.  We just have the grant deed that came back to us.  It was in the digital records and came right before the new property deed in terms of book and page, again same day.

Although our intention is to possibly get an LLA since the other side of our property is possibly buildable, we definitely want a certificate of compliance to satisfy the county.  We don't want to wait until we sell the property.  The county records are not clear.  They contacted us nearly 10 years ago and a parcel map from 2013 does show the 2200 square foot parcel as a separate parcel.  The city doesn't recognize this separate parcel.

Another wrinkle is that we are zoned by the city a certain way due to location but for building purposes are zoned differently that would allow a substantially larger dwelling unit if a developer bought the house as well as larger ADU's.  The 2200 square foot parcel means something.  The land surveyor we are working with is suggesting we talk with a Land Use Lawyer.  I have communicated with two, one of which noticed that the county engineer is designated as the city engineer.  We obviously want to avoid pursuing legal action.  

Thanks for suggestions or comments.