I recently prepared some easement documents and therein made reference to the "south line of Lot 23" which is within a recorded plat.?ÿ At least one individual has questioned me as to whether Lot 23 actually still exists after a lot line adjustment.?ÿ?ÿ
While it's probably an arguable point, my opinion is that Lot 23 will exist until it is either vacated or properly replatted.?ÿ Here's a document that explains things a little further:
I would also like to say this is a recorded document.?ÿ The surveyor that prepared this did an excellent job.?ÿ My question has nothing to do with the mechanics of or the preparation of this document.?ÿ It does have everything to do with an ever growing gray area between county and municipal regulations and codes.
I know this seems almost trivial, but it made me wonder.?ÿ Anybody care to toss in their $0.02?
?ÿ
Wellllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll it could go either way.?ÿ I have no problem with stating "Lot 23 as platted in 1984 and recorded in FILE XYZ".?ÿ Inserting the correct data, of course.
Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr you could say along a center line beginning at a point (some distance, some bearing from the northwest corner of Lots 21A as platted in 2020 and recorded in FILE ZYX and running (some distance some bearing) to the point of termination.?ÿ That is, assuming the change in lots was finalized and approved by the appropriate authorities.
what does it matter??ÿ you're referencing a line of record, one that can be reconstructed (if only in a figurative, theoretical sense).?ÿ i reference "extinct" lines and corners of record all the time- sometimes they are the very best means of deciphering heads from tails in convoluted scenarios.
As others have said, I dont think it matters, but whether the lot exists or not is highly dependent on statutes, ordincemces, and local customs, so I wouldnt pay much head to anyone who doesnt know a lot about your jurisdiction.?ÿ
In Alaksa, for example, by statute, not even the courts can vacate or move a platted lot line. (They can of course recognize new lines within a platted lot in cases of adverse possesion and the like).?ÿ
Short of doing a true replat what we do around here is simple.?ÿ In this case, the person owns four lots that may be treated as a single entity as far as taxation is concerned.?ÿ Then if the owner sells one lot, he still has three lots treated as single entity for taxation.?ÿ No fuss, no muss.
?ÿ
If the neighbor wants to buy 10 foot off of your empty lot, sell it to him.?ÿ The only catch is if that makes your remaining tract smaller than some city's regulation on minimum lot size.
I was told by people with a lot more experience than me that the lines never go away.?ÿ It doesn't matter if an adjustment, replat, or vacation is performed-- that initial plat will always be part of the public record and thus the lines will always exist.
I don't know your local regulations, the documents don't seem to include an owners dedication which would be needed everywhere I know of.?ÿ
There is an approval by the town, if this is enough then Lot 23 is gone, and Lot 21A is the description that should be used. Again, I don't know your local rules and regulations.
BLA's are given authority by statute from my experience, an exception to subdivision laws so........if that is true there, then it's a done deal a new subdivision of land governed by the statute giving BLA's authority to do it.?ÿ
@holy-cow?ÿ I was in for some dental work a couple years ago and my dentist asked me if I could do a survey of the property that his office building sat on.?ÿ He owned 2 lots and the building was spread across both of them.?ÿ He wanted to install a new sign for his business but the city wouldn't let him unless he consolidated the lots first.?ÿ He was annoyed about it, mostly because he owned both lots and had been doing business there for almost 30 years without a problem.?ÿ I assumed the rule was in place to avoid the headache of someone accidentally selling half a building.
Anyway, he was about to have the lot consolidation done when the city changed their tune and simply assigned him 1 tax ID for both lots.?ÿ I don't see what the difference is between taxing 2 lots or 1 lot of the same size so I guess this was just pointless bureaucracy in action.
I don't see this as a Lot Line Adjustment. In an LLA you start with 4 lots, you end with 4 lots. I'm seeing a Lot Consolidation, which is a form of replatting.?ÿ In a replatting the old lots cease to exist. That might make old easements granted by the original plat go away, but it doesn't necessarily make easement descriptions written with reference to the old plat lines void for ambiguity.?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ?ÿ
The lines will always be of record, so they can always be refered to in any kind of boundary documents, but after a vacation the cease to exsit as a boundary.?ÿ
I think I would have a difficult time trying to argue both Lot 23 and Lot 1A exist. Since the proposed action was approved, Lot 1A exists and lot 23 is no longer, in my opinion.
I have to ask. Is there a process in place in Cleveland County or Oklahoma for that matter that would prevent someone else from platting a parcel of land, and also calling it York Meadows??ÿ With no specifics as to where this particular document can be found all the parcel descriptions attached to that map or subsequent documents could be problematic.?ÿ?ÿ
I respectfully disagree that re-platting renders the underlying plat to cease to exist. Only a plat vacation can do that. Speaking from a long way away in a different state of course.?ÿ ?ÿ
Consolidating these four lots is necessary so that the building might be placed without considering any setback or zoning issues with regards to the interior lot lines as they stand.?ÿ Simply citing the four lots without some action might also burden the owner with four times any mitigation fees, assessments, etc.?ÿ ?ÿ
I have to ask. Is there a process in place in Cleveland County or Oklahoma for that matter that would prevent someone else from platting a parcel of land, and also calling it York Meadows??ÿ With no specifics as to where this particular document can be found all the parcel descriptions attached to that map or subsequent documents could be problematic.
A platting of subdivided land is a formal process at the county level.?ÿ Part of that process is verifying the new additions' names are unique.?ÿ The final recorded plats are usually kept separate from other record books, most likely due to their size if nothing else.?ÿ ?ÿBut lot line adjustments are not necessarily kept in reference to the plat. Yes, that can be problematic.
When the filed plats were actual full size drawings that required reproduction to get a copy some county clerks would make hand notes on the plats for incidental instruments like lot line adjustments and R/W or easement vacations.?ÿ But the plat reproduction is mostly digital now and the little tell-tale notes don't show up in a lot of cases.?ÿ Each county is different and it can be challenging to find "everything" that has gone one within a platted area after it was initially filed.
I respectfully disagree that re-platting renders the underlying plat to cease to exist. Only a plat vacation can do that. Speaking from a long way away in a different state of course.?ÿ ?ÿ
The plat doesn't cease to exist, and neither do the lines. But the lots, as title-able entities do.?ÿ?ÿ
Interestingly, this "LLA" was filed August 21st. of this year.?ÿ On September 28th. (over a month later) a mortgage was filed on "Lots 21, 22, 23 & 24 of York Meadows", not "Lot 21A".?ÿ I guess the lender liked the 'old' description and not the lot consolidation.
There should be a partial plat vacation, then a newly named subdivision, the BLA was used to get around the intent of the subdivision process, at least that's what I'm thinking.?ÿ
If your easement is along the South lot line of Lot 23 then it is through Lot 21A, so where then does it go from there? Your wording, which I have not seen, has created confusion if not ambiguity. Your description should be "along a line within Lot 21A and reference from a corner of Lot 21A,?ÿ then refer to the filed map, and further being the the same as platted Lot 23, referencing that plat.
What kind of an easement are you creating so close the the proposed/actual house location?
Paul in PA
Sounds to me like the power company requires an easement on a tract in order to run the line to the meter pole near the house.
The existence of Lot 23 within the current cadastre is not relevant. Surely lots can be consolidated, and for most purposes cease to exists.
But for use in a legal description, you could call to the south line of lot 23 of York Meadows, and it would be what it is. Even if it got replatted, the call isnt invalid, as you are using a lot within a record document as the bound.
?ÿ
I do not see any ambiguity nor confusion. The Plat exists in the record, and the Lot is shown on the Plat.