Hello all, I am an engineering tech and work with some surveyors and thought that this is the place to ask some questions.
I am looking at buying my duplex here in the L.A. CA area. The city planning department says that I can't build a third unit because the zoning states 1 unit per 2400 sq ft. The Assessor lists the property at 7000 sq ft (so close!)
Once I close escrow I intend to hire a surveyor to establish the boundaries and give me a better idea of the true lot size. City planning says I need a stamped survey to satisfy their requirements of establishing lot size. Since it needs a stamp anyway, do you think it would add a big charge to just do a record of survey? How about an alta?
Have you ever found the assessor to be off by over 200 sq ft for such a small lot? It is a corner lot with the short side along a gently curved street.
I'm not a surveyor, just a lurker, but I would recommend getting a survey done BEFORE closing escrow, not after...
Is the land Platted, maybe you can draw a rough boundary of the plat and compare your area to the County Assessors listed area. If it matches then, I would strongly doubt the surveyor would find monuments that prove the area being 200sf less then the platted area. I am pretty sure you will need a Boundary/Record survey, not an ALTA/ACSM. I know the dollar stretches further here in FL then CA, but 7000 sf does not seem too much of a price tag, but every parcel is different from others. Good Luck!
It's already legal non conforming for the duplex. My decision to buy doesn't rely on whether or not I can build the third unit. I like the property as is, that would just be gravy.
I haven't seen the full title report, but from my preliminary research the deed is based on a word description carving off a part of a bigger lot. Something like:
Starting at a point 60' easterly along the north line of lot xx, then south 13.5deg east to the south line of said lot.
Basically carving of the western +/- 60 ft of a bigger corner lot.
200 SF is 2 ft x 100 ft. You'd have to find that much of an error, in previous work. There is a guy around here, that can tell you more than I can... He is a California LS. I am saying that you could likely find 50 SF more than 200.
N
If the subject tract is a deed cut out of a Subdivision lot then a Record of Survey will be required per the California PLS Act.
It is good advice to get the survey before closing escrow so you find out if there any nasty surprises now when the seller is still in the picture.
> "Have you ever found the assessor to be off by over 200 sq ft for such a small lot? "
Yes, but this would vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and lot to lot.
If your property is carved out of a parent tract there would likely be no room for "finding" any extra area. The overage or shortage of the original lot, if any, would most likely fall to the parent parcel by the intent of the vesting deed.
Would you buy a car sight unseen? Get the survey done first, even if you have to pay for it up front.
I don't know about CA, but in Tennessee, the assessor's maps have known to be horrible. I did a survey of a tract a few years ago that was being assessed at 35 acres. It turns out there was 14.
I see several people advising to get a survey first. To me, a land survey on a property I may well not buy is expensive. You might be able to negotiate the cost of the survey, or at least make an offer pending the results of a full boundary survey. Maybe they would share the cost though. If the house does not sell to you, it is still of value to the homeowner who might be able to use it to fix any problems, or at least as a selling point to prospective buyers.
If the parcel was separated in the past, and is not being divided for your purchase, maybe you can get your hands on a prior record of survey. That should be more accurate than the assessor's records. That and a tape measure would let you get a feel for things and guide your decision to have a new survey or not.
I agree with Dave.
If having more rental units makes a big difference to you I would also get the permits Prior to purchase.
Another option could be a Lot Line Adjustment with an adjoining property to pickup those 200+/- square feet (purchase a strip of land).
don't build a house of cards... do what you can really afford. good luck
Same here, tax maps are not reliable.
Totally agree with Tom. A survey is actually an improvement to the property, so let the seller pay for it. Or negotiate the fee with the seller.
Me, I'd never recommend to anybody speculating on land purchases to pay for the survey. I would want the owner of the land to pay me before I set foot. I've been burned a few times by deals that didn't go through, often because the survey showed problems (sellers problems). Sometimes buyers lie to lenders too, so another deal killer. So many things can go wrong.
I hate to compare it to a bad furnace or leaky hot water tank or a broken sidewalk, but it always goes back to the sellers ultimate problem. Risk vs reward works both ways, so think $$$$
In terms of the land area, tax maps, GIS data, etc - the term is "nominal". An aliquot 40 acres can be 32 or 42. 7,000 sq ft can be 6,800 or 7,200. Get the city to sign off regardless of a survey. Building setbacks may be a cause for concern too, and likely more of a problem..
Good luck
Lot Line Adjustment
I had an attorney recently ask me for a "lot line adjustment." She said she didn't really want to do a subdivision. An adjustment would imply that there was something wrong with it. There isn't anything wrong with it. Moving a lot line is a subdivision/land merger.
Lot Line Adjustment
> I had an attorney recently ask me for a "lot line adjustment." She said she didn't really want to do a subdivision. An adjustment would imply that there was something wrong with it. There isn't anything wrong with it. Moving a lot line is a subdivision/land merger.
groan
well, I guess a Lot Line Adjustment is way different in California (OP is in Ca.)... or that Atty is practicing way outside of her expertise.
Lot Line Adjustment
Ditto.
What does the seller perceive that he has to gain by getting a survey? He can now sell ignorance, whereas a survey may reveal a problem that deflates his land value.
> What does the seller perceive that he has to gain by getting a survey? He can now sell ignorance, whereas a survey may reveal a problem that deflates his land value.
I am sure that is exactly why it isn't done. I imagine the Realtors® strongly encourage that they don't discover anything that they would then have to disclose.
In my opinion, you should have to get a survey and either fix any problems that might reveal, or sell it with that disclosure in mind. It is very similar to requiring full disclosure I think, except of course that you don't necessarily already know about it.
But there again, as a buyer, that might be where you have some leverage by making an offer with an extra $1,000 towards a boundary survey pending the results of that survey. They get the survey, and they get reimbursed if you buy it.