California- Who owns the street

It would be useful to see the owner's dedication statement to see if it is explicit as to fee or easement. In 1905, however, it wasn't generally stated.

Statutes and case law indicate that, in the absence of clear evidence of a dedication in fee, that an easement was offered and accepted. Building setbacks are measured from the right of way line, property tax assessments exclude the public right of way and, in the event of the vacating of the public right of way, fee title would indeed be unencumbered to centerline as shown on the map. However, public utilities and private ingress and egress easements would likely remain - still unbuildable.

Warren Smith, post: 337455, member: 9900 wrote: ....in the event of the vacating of the public right of way, fee title would indeed be unencumbered to centerline as shown on the map. However, public utilities and private ingress and egress easements would likely remain - still unbuildable.

There are municipalities here that allow area within the public right of way to be counted as part of the lot area to calculate the maximum FAR (floor area ratio) for the zoning district for proposed buildings. If the road area was dedicated and would be reverted to the own should the road be vacated, it can be counted; if the road area was acquired in fee it cannot be counted.

Probably an easement. The ability to include underlying fee area in your parcel area calcs (or not) is usually determined by local zoning and subdivision regulations, and is often tied to existing or proposed parcel sizes. Have you addressed that?

doesn't the area published for each parcel tell a tale in addition to dimensions on the lots? I would sway toward the roadway being a right-of-way (easement) with no additional evidence to the contrary.

"In accordance with and subject to the terms of a resolution of said Board adopted this 3rd day of April, 1905" ...

Get a copy of the resolution and see what "terms" were imposed.

JBS

Like Stahl said, look there first!

Calculate the areas. If they exclude the road then it is not an easment unless specificaly stated. The lot owners have reversionary rights so the city has a "limited" fee interest. Whether an easment area can be used for zoning puropses varies, as does weather set backs are calculated from the true boundary or the edge of an easment. Talk to your local government.

read the map:

"dedicated to public use" ... use = easement

if you find another document executed by the Owner of the land being subdivided (board resolution signed by the owner?) that precedes the date of endorsement on the map that specifically says "dedicated in fee" then we have something to discuss.

or more simply, as stated above, by a true Expert:

Warren Smith, post: 337455, member: 9900 wrote: ...in the absence of clear evidence of a dedication in fee, that an easement was offered and accepted...

Theoretically, the area published on the plat would be the "legal" area. The first deed that references the lot and block of a subdivision "brings the referenced plat into the four corners of the deed". The way I see it, barring a gross error, a purchaser of a lot should be able to rely on that number to use as reference to a required acreage for buildable purposes. If they are excluding the roadway from ownership of the adjoining property, it seems to me that the net area is what should be published on the plat/deed.

I remember the area being discussed in an older thread where John Stahl stated the opinion that the deeded area was the legal area over a newly-measured area. I would think a similar principle here would apply. I see JB chimed in earlier, maybe he can refute my logic if I am applying it poorly.

Oklahoma is a long way from California, physically and metaphorically too. In Oklahoma this situation is common and fee is to the centerline.

Determination of fee or easement by area would be a weak argument here in Oklahoma. I believe the answer is centered around what would occur if the "dedicated public use" was somehow extinguished or vacated. It appears to me there is no underlying fee owner save the lot owners themselves.

I cannot answer the question about where ownership ends. I defer to the opinion offered by Mr. Smith.
However, I like to look at maps and this one sparks my brain to ask questions and offer these observations:
I have never seen a "centerline" comprised of chords when the limits of the street in this case are quite obviously curved.
How do these lot areas work out? To the chords or a curve comprised of chords?
I bet Mr. Ross ticked off the recorder by traipsing in at 4:55 to record his plat. Good thing it wasn't Friday.
If your client is motivated by how much home he can build, he should be talking to his attorney not his surveyor. Protect yourself in this neighborhood of multi-million dollar homes by deflecting this question to the appropriate expert.
I don't know where you obtain copies of subdivision maps in your neck of the woods, but I always try to obtain a copy of one with original signatures. I have found scrivener errors on copies.

Be careful my friend.

California Civil Code Section 831 states "An owner of land bounded by a road or street is presumed to own to the center of the way, but the contrary may be shown."

It isn't 100% helpful, but in my experience, this section is interpreted to mean that if it cannot be shown definitively that the city holds the underlying fee title it is presumed to be held by the adjoining owner, even if the deeds do not include it. The times I see this used the most is on a subdivision map that creates lots and dedicates the streets "to the public for public use". When a street is vacated by the public, the adjoining owners then can claim the fee to the centerline.

But, as in most things, each case has to be examined on its own. From what I saw of the verbiage, I'd say that the street is an easement only and that the owner holds title to the centerline, subject to the public right-of-way.

Whether or not this makes differences as to how big of a building can be built is entirely up to the local agency and their specific ordinances.

Using reported areas as an indicator is not generally a very reliable method. In some local jurisdictions, it has been the practice to report net area, meaning that area not covered by public RWs, even where the lots adjoining the RW presumptively include fee title to the centerline.

A better indicator from the map is that the sidelines are projected to centerline and the corners shown there, with no dimensions or corner symbols being shown along the RW. But as suggested by JBS, for the definitive answer, you need to view a copy of that resolution. If I were to bet on which it is, I'd put my money on the RW as an easement as there actual fee dedications for subdivision roads are pretty rare. Local jurisdictions are hesitant to take RWs in fee as taking them as an easement can leave imposed ownership maintenance responsibilities with the lot owners as the fee owners. This was demonstrated some time back when the courts ruled that maintaining the public sidewalks for safe passage within the City of Sacramento, even though they were publicly built improvements within the public right of way, was the responsibility of the fee landowner of the lot that the sidewalk was on.

I'll see if I can find the case and post it later. If Dave K comes along, he probably knows the case well and will provide the reference before I check back in.

Can't speak for Cali., but here this has gone to the State Supreme Court a number of times. The phrase "Dedicated to the Public" has been gone over endlessly it seems.

It creates a limited fee ownership by the public, a quasi-fee ownership where the city/county owns to a depth that allows installation of utilities. All reversionary rights remain, and there is some argument over automatic vacations when roads are not used or fall into disuse.

In my part of the world that phrase would make the right of way the private ownership line, Cali may well be different and looking at the qualifying language might clear it up in this case.

This was adjudicated "recently" over an oil well drilled in an unused street, the Court declared that the public had no mineral rights which even though not retained were still held by the subdivision developer. Part of the limited ownership and reversionary rights issue.

that sounds very different than California. Revisionary rights would go the the adjoiner, not the original developer (unless the adjoiner lots were never conveyed)

"revisionary" rights...yuk yuk.

I really don't want to jump in...but here goes.

Lots of things get "dedicated". In Oklahoma the use of the word "dedicate" does not imply a conveyance of fee. On the contrary, most "grants or dedications for use" are accepted as easement only. The conveyance of fee in Oklahoma occupies a lofty position in that it must be specified in word.

For years our Highway Department obtained both "easement and right-of-way" from property owners. As the years rolled by the agency acted as if they were the fee owners of the areas. To the point they actually deeded some to a local municipality. Big law suit. The highway boys now word their documents with the specificity of a conveyance at the urging of the courts.

Great responses, Thanks to all

To muddy the water, I have found multiple minor subdivision maps along this street since I posted yesterday
Some show Camino Los Cerros to be dedicated by the new map and some where the R/W is the limit of the Fee title property
and the County never required the Street to be dedicated by the new map.
Implying the County thinks they have fee title to the street ..sometimes
All of these minor subdivions were carved out of the original 1906 map shown above.

My Field Survey won't change, just the Net/Gross Area on the map
I will leave this alone and let the owners talk with their Title Company,

The current value of these tear down 1/2 acre parcels are several million right now and
I don't see any benefit to the liability exposure.

Thanks Again, Great info

paden cash, post: 337597, member: 20 wrote: For years our Highway Department obtained both "easement and right-of-way" from property owners. As the years rolled by the agency acted as if they were the fee owners of the areas. To the point they actually deeded some to a local municipality. Big law suit. The highway boys now word their documents with the specificity of a conveyance at the urging of the courts.

Bad idea to use terms like "right of way" or any qualifying term in a deed (or legal description) of a warranty deed transfer. If it implies that it is for a specific use, it can be construed as an easement. It is especially bad for organizations like highway departments or railroads. They always refer to their corridor as a right-of-way (corridor). (by especially bad, I mean as in easy to use the wrong terminology because of their use of the term) They can call it what they like, but if they are adding to it, they need to be very careful in not calling it a "right of way" on their legal documents (especially documents of transfer).