OK let me launch this and see how it floats...
I would think that a new one could be used only if the location on the ground of the old one is now uncertain. The BLA became the line only if it met all the CA requirements. Any subsequent one would also have to meet all the elements. Does the newer work prove the older BLA is no good because not sufficient uncertainty? Is there sufficient uncertainty for a new one? Sounds to me like you want to get as far away from a BLA as possible and fix the position of the line per proper conveyance documents.
duh DAVE
The SUBDIVISION MAP ACT ENUMERATES EXCEPTIONS TO THE ACT ITSELF. WHAT ARE FOLKS GOING TO DO IF THEY DO NOT CONSIDER THE MAP ACT WHERE IT PROVIDES FOR AN EXCEPTION FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS. Where did you go to find the exception the SMA? The SMA right. So I am correct to say that property cannot be subdivided without reference to the particulars of the SMA. The lot line adjustment exception DOES include rules that apply to the lot line adjustment. For example the SMA limits the number of parcels that can be involved in the lot line adjustment.... Duh
Duane is correct
The answer is NO, for the reasons that Duane stated. If they want to move the line as a matter of convenience, then the owners would need to seek relief under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the exceptions provided there in for a lot line adjustment.
Duane is correct
Yes, I agree, it looks like that is the correct answer.
Is this some kind of D ane conspiracy, U or no U?
duh DAVE
There is no need to be nasty, Dane.
ssh don't tell anyone it is a secret DAVE
Sorry for getting nasty Duh, even though I felt provoked your use of bold in your response to me. When I see bold it just turns me to attack mode almost as fast as Peter E. blows his top over ALL CAPS.....
What does the SMA have to do with BLAs?
I'm fairly familiar with the SMA, but there are others more familiar with it than I am, but to the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in the SMA that has anything to do with Boundary Line Agreements, nor should there be since no property is being divided at the time of the agreement.
I don't get the snippy attitude either. ???
OK let me launch this and see how it floats...
Sure they can agree on any common boundary location they like. The question is, as I see it, one of proper legal principle and process to effect that agreement. But as a practical matter, it might also be seen as strictly one of process that depends upon some discretion of the parties and of the local jurisdiction.
Strictly speaking, they previously gave certainty to an uncertain line. As I understand the facts, that line made certain in 1950 is certain now by evidence on the ground. Those marks upon the ground, per a valid agreement fixed its location.
Now, 63 years later, they now wish to move the line to a new physical location which conforms to more precise measurements to arrive at the line's location from some other distant points or lines, and thus redefine a line which now has no uncertainty of location... just 'cause it's now possible and practical to make more precise measurements.
Per the legal requirements of an Agreed Boundary, no they can't. It fails the test of uncertainty even though the parties agree they wish to move it. this is properly a Lot Line Adjustment.
The principle is very similar to surveying in a section that has been surveyed, broken down, and monumented with cruder survey equipment and methods than are available today. Those aliquot divisions have been properly defined by a survey performed to the reasonable standards of the time and since recognized. Those lines are fixed regardless of what a later, more carefully or precisely measured survey might find. Abandoning such a principle would mean that every surveyed line is susceptible to redefinition each time they are measured anew.
However, if the local jurisdiction is not inclined to make a fuss about it, both landowners are amenable to it, and especially if at least one of the landowners is a sovereign (i.e. the State of CA), whose to stop them, and what practical purpose would insisting that a LLA be done instead serve?
Considerations along those lines would be whether or not the change in the line would have any effect on compliance with local zoning.
Agreed Boundary and Adjusted Boundary are different
You guys are mixing up an Agreed Boundary with a Boundary 9or Lot) Line Adjustment.
With Agreed Boundary, the agreed location gives definition to a line of uncertain location. It does not move a line from one location to another desired location. Hence, there is no transfer of property.
With a Lot Line Adjustment, it is still an agreement to place the common boundary in a mutually agreed position, but the boundary already has certain location and is being moved to a different location. In this case, there is a transfer of the land which falls between the two certain lines (old boundary location and new, adjusted location).
Since an Agreed Boundary is not creating any new lines but simply making an uncertain location definite, Subdivision Acts and Ordinances have no application to them.
Each state is different when it comes to Lot Line Adjustments. Some states regulate them to some extent throught their Map Acts, and others leave all regulation up to the local jurisdiction.
In CA, the SMA enumerates an LLA of 4 or fewer contiguous parcels as exceptions from the SMA - not regulated under the SMA - with the condition that the LLA is subject to local agency review for conformance to local zoning codes. The local jurisdiction has discretion over any variances from that code represented by the LLA.
In the case Dave presents, there would be nothing stopping the parties from executing a LLA to have the new, more precisely placed new line superced the old line. The hesitancy might very well be that most local jurisdictions push the limits of their discretionary authority over LLAs to questionably legal limts (being generous in that observation) and often charge unreasonably high fees for review and approval.
The only fee the local government can properly charge for a Boundary Line Agreement is the fee for recording the filed agreement. No review fees. No review authority. That really chaps the hides of most local planning agencies. There is also no additional time over what the parties need to create and effect the agreement for review or for wrangling with local agencies when they make illegal demands for additional easements or fee RW dedications, etc.
Sure, a correction instrument
Kent,
It would make sense if some error (or fiction of some error) could be found in the original agreement, but you've also correctly identified the pitfalls that exist in CA. Except that rather than a surveyor (most of whom wouldn't care or would like to figure out how to be able to do the same for some of their clients), it would more likely be some local planning bureaucrat ticked off at missing their opportunity to exercise inappropriate levels of authority over the process and to charge ridiculously high fees for review and approval.
I think there may be pills for that...
You need to get over that Dane. Sometimes bold is used simply to draw specific attention to a particular portion of a longer posting.
Now if someone uses bold and all caps THEN THEY ARE YELLING AT YOU!!!!
Oops, I almost forgot...
[sarcasm]THEN THEY ARE YELLING AT YOU!!!!
[/sarcasm]
😉
Sure, a correction instrument
We are the gu'mint, we don't have to go through the local agency process.
But our own process is far more difficult including doing valuation on all of the swap parcels. In this case a lot of possibly valuable timber could be involved. We have to ensure we aren't making a gift of public funds.
Sure, a correction instrument
> > We have to ensure we aren't making a gift of public funds.
And we'll gladly spend $20,000 to ensure that someone is not potentially unduly enriched by $500. It's all part of serving and protecting "the public" from fraud and waste.
I think there may be pills for that...
Like my Dad used to say. "I NOT YELLING AT YOU...I'm just speaking at a tone you can HEAR"
DDSM
I think there may be pills for that...
> Like my Dad used to say. "I NOT YELLING AT YOU...I'm just speaking at a tone you can HEAR"
>
> DDSM
My dad never said that. He just yelled a lot. Some was because he was nearly deaf in one ear. Most was because he was extremely demanding and yelled a lot. Usually quite profanely.
B-)
