Combining lots from different plats.

I've done several "Consolidation Plats" for our Planning and Zoning department using lots from two different plats. I just show each lot and it's corresponding Plat Cabinet and Slide info and note in survey notes or purpose notes, ie, To consolidate Lot ? (XXX Subdivision, Unit x) with Lot $ (xxx Subdivision, Unit xx) and so on....

As long as the covenants, restrictions, and setbacks are the same for both plats I wouldn't have a problem with it. When there are differences it often requires the blessing of the developer or other lot owners.

I would combine them but not until lots were surveyed , by me. .

Doesn't matter here. Combine anything with anything as long as the resultant lot conforms to the local Ordinance. Am I missing something?

Questions Questions Questions

How do they handle this in the court house records? Does Lot 1 disappear from any further indexing? Does it become Lot 1A to provide a distinction from prior ownership limits? Do Lots 7&8 disappear? Does it become something like Lot 7A?

Biggest question of all, why not just leave them alone and call them what they really are in the first place. Somebody owns Lot 1 of whatever and the west half of Lot 7 of something else. No big deal. The bureaucratic mishmash that comes up with limitations on usage are the only one's who want to influence future usage. Why can't they do so without all this "consolidation and renaming" foolishness?

If I own the southeast quarter of a section and also own the east half of the southwest quarter of a section, that is good enough. There is no need to rename it "the asparagus aliquot" of said section.

Questions Questions Questions

>
> Biggest question of all, why not just leave them alone and call them what they really are in the first place. Somebody owns Lot 1 of whatever and the west half of Lot 7 of something else. No big deal. The bureaucratic mishmash that comes up with limitations on usage are the only one's who want to influence future usage. Why can't they do so without all this "consolidation and renaming" foolishness?
>
> If I own the southeast quarter of a section and also own the east half of the southwest quarter of a section, that is good enough. There is no need to rename it "the asparagus aliquot" of said section.

A-men my bovine brother. I am trying to apply this same logic to a similar situation here where the local p and z are forcing a red tape nightmare onto some poor folks that just want to increase their backyards NOT create new build-able lots.

I love my job, I love my job, I love my job.

I spend a lot of time and effort trying to save potential clients from spending unnecessary monies for what I think are unnecessary services.

My Daddy taught me well, how to talk myself out of work. ;). Oh well, it seems like the right thing to do, to me. But we all have different ideas about what is right, don't we?

Questions Questions Questions

our city requires lots to be combined if the client wants to build on or near the inner property line of the two owned lots , otherwise they would have to meet zoning regs for one lot ....on commercial projects part of the site plan approval process is to combine lots as a requirement . This is a good part of my business and pays well.

Around here, depending on the city, it might require a vacation plat releasing the two lots, a replat consolidating the lots, and an entirely new lot number being assigned to the resulting lot by the city.

Just one example of what I have done. There are many variations.

I don't understand why there would be an issue. Description stays Lot 1 & Lot 2.

The problem could be if they want to build over the common line and there is an easement of some kind along that line, ie. public utilities, drainage, ing-eg. In which case, most governing bodies would likely require that the easement be formally vacated, and that may require a replat of some kind.

Questions Questions Questions

"...why not just leave them alone and call them what they really are in the first place.?"

Because some governmental authority won't allow it?

Tell the trouble-making authorities to......

go F themselves. Since they think they are so good at making rules, why not make a really simple one that specifically addresses the situation and allows fractional lots to exist in union with other lots or fractional lots. No need to rename anything, just apply whatever local restrictions are deemed essential at any given time. You know the local authorities are going to change the rules again and again and again over the decades and centuries.

Example of where I did tell a local city where to go and how to get there. Had a client of very limited means. She lived in one of those parts of town where things only get torn down or upgraded very slightly. Nobody will ever build a new house in that area until everything else has been torn down. Her neighbor, who was similarly of limited means, had a house and detached garage, but no vehicle and would never own a vehicle in her lifetime. The client wanted the garage. No big deal. I go out and split the lot leaving more than the minimum sideyard setback doubled between the house and the garage. Client buys the partial lot. About two years later she decides to make some improvements to the garage which necessitated getting a building permit from the city. The inspector comes out and goes nuts. Tells her all sorts of foolishness. She calls me. I make a visit to city hall and calmly discuss with the nice people there over the fact that they are a bunch of "big city-minded idiots". Long story short is that they gave her the building permit.

We have a system in place that actually allows people to slice off a piece of their pie and divide any way they want to do it and then go record the transaction with the county court house. A local jurisdiction may be able to apply limitations to that new piece of ground, but, can not stop the change in ownership. A common example is where the county has decided that standard septic tanks and lagoons can be constructed on any tract having a total of three acres or more. Those with less area may be forced to install much more expensive septic handling equipment. Well, there are a heck of a lot of tracts smaller than that created over the years. So, the current owner goes to his neighbor and buys a tract big enough to make the total area bigger than three acres. That might only be a quarter-acre. Or, in the case of platted areas outside of municipalities, it is as simple as purchasing one or more lots from a neighbor. No need to go around renaming anything. Just treat it as though it was a single tract from the getgo.

In the example above of the lady wanting to own the neighbor's garage, her improvement on the garage represented the most visible improvement to any structure within a few blocks in many years. Meanwhile she had to pay slightly higher taxes because she had increased the value of her property, something that wasn't happening anywhere else in that neighborhood.

Tell the trouble-making authorities to......

How does one combine two lots "1 and 7A" when lot one is owned by Smith and lot 7A is owned by Jones who has agreeded to sell to Smith.

Tell the trouble-making authorities to......

The situation would be the same even if both lots were in the same subdivision. We show the owners of each lot on the plat. Each owner signs the plat then once it is recorded they have to follow up with deeds to actually transfer ownership.

Tell the trouble-making authorities to......

> The situation would be the same even if both lots were in the same subdivision. We show the owners of each lot on the plat. Each owner signs the plat then once it is recorded they have to follow up with deeds to actually transfer ownership.

Exactly....

Is this an attorney for the City or County? What is he/she trying to accomplish?

Re-platting three lots into two would tidy up the record somewhat but would also require extra time, trouble and expense on the part of the property owners. Since the zoning authority has OK'd the lot split, it doesn't sound as though there's any legal or regulatory reason for doing a re-plat. Of course that question could be asked.

In my area there are fractional lots like this that have been in place for 100 years and more. They don't cause much trouble. Of course the owners will sometimes get two separate tax bills, so they have to make sure they don't lose track and forget to pay one of them.

The request came from my clients attorney for two reasons. One is there is a min. sq. ft. for any building on a lot. The 1/2 lots will only have a shed or pool house on them which will not meet the sq. ft. rule. Second is the side set backs, if the pool house is build across a line it might be a problem when his client sells the property in the future.

Plann and zoning agreed to wave the sq. ft. and set backs but he doesn't know how to describe the varience. I spoke with him and we may have resolved it.

When I run up against an act that used a creative or non-standard manor it usually is involved with a re finance or sale that is blocked because of the short term saving of money by an owner. Re plat required here by Statute, that vacates the underlying lot and subdivision lines and also any unused easements, such as those utility easement written as lying 5 feet on either side of every lot line, few being used. Re Platting is the only way to clean up the past and start over clean. Doing so would ease future refinancing and sales regardless of what mess the local government might create. Wise move if you care about who follows, older people leaving an estate usually want all loose ends clipped and any potential hiccups blocked, younger ones planning on selling also don't need unintended problems created by government or a previous owner doing what they could get away with.
jud

Tell the trouble-making authorities to......

Wowzer Mr Cow. The question was combining two lots into one parcel. Not splitting off slivers for garages,etc.

I maintain that the legal description of the parcel now consists of Lot 1 and Lot 2. They are legal lots in and amongst themselves. The guy just owns two.

At issue, IMO, is a building permit for something that may encroach on a "public easement", if it exists along the common line. When those lots and easements were created, simultaneously, the public maintains rights to those public easements.

If John Q wants both lots and wants to build in the middle, so be it. That does not extinguish the public's rights to those easements. Thus they must be abandoned. Makes perfect sense to me, and keeps chain of title nice and tidy.

The procedure of abandonment is a local jurisdictional issue. Some are just paperwork, some need a replat. They all have pretty hefty fee ($600 plus)

$0.02

Not so fast there, Wayne

He is splitting a lot in one subdivision in half. Then he is keeping half a lot to go with the one next to it in the same subdivision. But.....he is planning to sell the other half of the lot to the owner of the lot adjacent to it but in a different subdivision.

"My client buys lot 7 and 8 with intentions of subdividing lot 7 in half, my client keeping half (7B) and selling the other half (7A) to the owner of lot 1 of the 2009 plat so both can expand their yard space. "

Maybe I was not clear in my story. (Yup, just checked. I left out that the garage was in a different subdivision.) That is almost identical to the case with the garage. It was on roughly half a lot in one subdivision and the willing buyer was on a full lot in the adjoining subdivision. The city folk thought the fractional lot should be merged into the full lot in the other subdivision. That's when I told them to go pound sand and where to pound it. That kind of crapola doesn't fly in this part of the world.