I would think that zoning relief of some kind would be required for any structural encroachment. Even a zoning setback of zero is violated.
What do the planning guru's say about zoning violations?
Dtp
California's Government Code (section 66499.34) provides that the issuance of a permit or grant of approval for development of real property shall constitute real property which has been approved for development, and the local agency shall issue a certificate of compliance for the affected real property.
That is, structures which have been allowed to be constructed are held to be in compliance with local regulations. Should alterations be required, it's back to conformance.
Aliquot,
I am doing some research to take to the local platting authority and I hadnÛªt realized that most of the platting authorities in Alaska had a surveyor on staff. Other than Anchorage or Fairbanks or the unorganized borough which is handled by the state, could you tell me which boroughs have a licensed surveyor on staff?
Thanks for the help.
KLS, post: 340793, member: 4459 wrote: Aliquot,
I am doing some research to take to the local platting authority and I hadnÛªt realized that most of the platting authorities in Alaska had a surveyor on staff. Other than Anchorage or Fairbanks or the unorganized borough which is handled by the state, could you tell me which boroughs have a licensed surveyor on staff?
Thanks for the help.
I don't know them all, but Kenai, Mat Su and Juneau all do. As of a few years ago Denali Borough had one too, becasue their Bourough council is the plating authority and one of the council members was a PLS. I don't know if he is still there. While there are bunch of very small platting authorities, the above named ones cover the vast majority of recored plats in the state.
Warren Smith, post: 340773, member: 9900 wrote: California's Government Code (section 66499.34) provides that the issuance of a permit or grant of approval for development of real property shall constitute real property which has been approved for development, and the local agency shall issue a certificate of compliance for the affected real property.
That is, structures which have been allowed to be constructed are held to be in compliance with local regulations. Should alterations be required, it's back to conformance.
A properly prepared easement document can be used to grant an ad-joiner the use of a real-property feature until it is removed or even util a specific future date. I can not count the number of utility easements I have seen that are revoked upon removal. As for not being able to create an easement for a building, party wall agreements and overhang easements kind of dis prove that.
A good case for such an easement would be my neighbor's garage. It was built in the 70's on our property line without the benefit of a survey. When they built it, the City required a double wide cinder block wall along the property line. It is on the line at one end but about 0.75 feet on my property on the other end and come within an inch of the eve of my 1910 carriage house/garage/office. I do not mind the building being there, but if it ever needs to be replaced I don't want it on my property. A temporary easement would give them the rights to keep using it but put them on notice that if the their garage is ever replace, it needs to move off of my property.
John Putnam, post: 341431, member: 1188 wrote: A properly prepared easement document can be used to grant an ad-joiner the use of a real-property feature until it is removed or even util a specific future date. I can not count the number of utility easements I have seen that are revoked upon removal. As for not being able to create an easement for a building, party wall agreements and overhang easements kind of dis prove that.
A good case for such an easement would be my neighbor's garage. It was built in the 70's on our property line without the benefit of a survey. When they built it, the City required a double wide cinder block wall along the property line. It is on the line at one end but about 0.75 feet on my property on the other end and come within an inch of the eve of my 1910 carriage house/garage/office. I do not mind the building being there, but if it ever needs to be replaced I don't want it on my property. A temporary easement would give them the rights to keep using it but put them on notice that if the their garage is ever replace, it needs to move off of my property.
In a party wall agreement the wall benefits both land owners. An overhang does not exclude the land owner. Neither of these type of easements/agreements are exclusive. If part of your house is on someone else's property the land owner is completely excluded from that portion of the land.
I have no doubt that a grant of an easement to occupy your neighbor's land for an addition to your house would be upheld in court, because the grant of an easement is a clear intent to allow the encroachment, but it would not be an easement. The encroacher would be responsible for taxes for the encroached area and it would trigger the need for platting action if local regulations require it.
