Is a street vacation a lot line adjustment?

In California, the Streets and Highways Code provides for the reservation of a public utilities easement over all or a portion of the vacated right of way. In fact, it requires notification to franchisees. In the case of a summary vacation due to realignment, typically the utilities are also relocated.

There is also a provision for landowners to record a notice of private access rights over the vacated public right of way to the existing public R/W, if they were dedicated by a subdivision map.

The local platting authority skipped over a few steps in the process and the surveyor that was involved is also heavily involved in local politics and well know to me for pulling such antics. No road had ever been constructed but permits were granted to several utilities to be located in the ROW, though none were ever given the opportunity to comment on this particular action.

Tom Adams, post: 339590, member: 7285 wrote: I agree. If it was a purchase "for right-of-way purposes" that would make it an easement and reversion rights would apply. But if it were worded as though it were a full-fee purchase that they can do with whatever they want, and if they paid full fair market value, I would think it best that they quitclaim that to the adjoining owner to remove all doubt as to their intent.

Deeds to political subdivisions of the State should state the purpose of the acquisition. If not then we have to look at the evidence of use. This can be tough in States where Keogh is still the law of the land....

thebionicman, post: 339594, member: 8136 wrote: Deeds to political subdivisions of the State should state the purpose of the acquisition. If not then we have to look at the evidence of use. This can be tough in States where Keogh is still the law of the land....

I don't know anything about that. I am only referring to the point that if you state a purpose in the confines of the deed, it becomes an easement, and you are limiting your usage to the purpose specified. It would also be wise to only offer a percentage of the fair market value if the grantor is going to still have ownership of the underlying land and reversion rights.

thebionicman, post: 339529, member: 8136 wrote: A few minor points. L..
Ownership to Center line is a rebuttable presumption in most States. If I dedicate 50 feet and you live along the other side, a vacation reverts to me.
The 2 foot fee strip is an interesting question. If the fee were purchased as part of the Right-of-way it would likely revert to the owner holding reversion rights. If held for a different purpose it would require a separate vacation.

For a situation like the 2' strip, I see Caltrans fee R/W deeds that include words like "together with the underlying fee interest in and to" the existing easement R/W adjacent to the new acquisition. I understand they pay some nominal amount for that underlying fee interest. In the end they own, in fee, a newly created parcel comprised of the footprint of the former easement R/W, the new strip acquisition, and any adjoining similar fee acquisitions.

Other terms on their deeds include "...hereby grant to the State...all that real property", "...intention of the State is to construct and maintain a public highway...", "...State...accepts for public purposes the real property described in this deed..." It could be that the State codes set up a "reversion of fee" situation like JBS describes, but that's not how Caltrans does it. If they were in the future to not need all or a portion of it, as I understand it they would sell and deed it to an adjoiner. If it doesn't sell I don't know what they do. There appears to be no "reversion of fee" to the adjoiner, so I'm assuming they can't vacate/abandon fee R/W.

MightyMoe, post: 339588, member: 700 wrote: The vacating public entity doesn't get any say who gets what when it's vacated. Their only involvement is to give up their interest, the adjoiner already has his interest.

Moe,
See the attached "Closing street to aid jet fitter up to LR board". (August 16, 2013)

DDSM:beer:
(Nothing Political...)

Baja,

Actually, Caltrans vacates its right of way outside of project limits and, pursuant to Agreement, will relinquish those parcels identified on Highway Maps (filed in the County Recorder's office) to the local agencies. A resolution is passed by the State Transportation Commission and recorded in the County Recorder's office, consummating the transfer of these fee parcels.

Section 73 of the Streets and Highways Code regulates these actions.

That's cool!!
They vacate it then they take it, or am I reading it wrong?

Moe,
It is more the city attorney thinking that the city owns the ROW and, upon vacation, can GIVE it to who they want.

I did not care for this decision, but was ignored.

DDSM:beer::beer:

When I asked the question above about the 2' acquisition in fee adjoining a 30' dedicated road my concern as the surveyor writing the description was we typically do a strip description and say "everything lying easterly of the following described center line ....." and then we have a table with the width of the strip easterly. Then we except out the real property designated as public right of way. And our areas we provide are the difference of the two. Hence my question, If the agency is receiving underlying rights to the entire 32' should not the area be the entire 32' and the adjoining property owner is compensated accordingly, which is quite substantial in most cases? Jp

The original 30-foot half-width of the right of way would have already been properly acquired and compensation already given for the existing right of way. The new 2-foot additional right of way would be all that is necessary for a takings compensation.

JBS

Thanks! Jp

Although the advise in this thread is good, be careful, because it always depends...

The right of reversion usually only belongs to the property the ROW was created from. For example, if a 30 feet of ROW was taken from one land owner and 20 feet from another the vacated area will not be split at the centerline.

Another thing to consider is how was the ROW created? In a Alaska a row created through dedication by a subdivision plat automatically reverts, but a ROW that a government entity payed for will not revert unless the adjoined pays fair market value for it.

There are also cases where it is appropriate to divide the vacated area the way accreditation is apportioned instead of just extending property lines to the center line.

Every state has their own law, so as always, be sure you understand your state before applying principles you have learned from an expert in a different state.

Makes you wonder what he thinks the word vacation means.

What is really fun is a platted cul-de-sac that is to be vacated. Who gets what?

It sounds like you're thinking of a different situation than I was. I was thinking not of a re-route of the highway (which might leave a right of way that a city/county could (or need) to use as a street), but of leftover right of way when the State reconfigured a highway or shifted it sideways a bit. In the later case a city or county wouldn't likely want some sliver/strip that didn't go anywhere or add to something they already had. Does the State have to offer all leftover R/W to the City/County?

If the 30' right of way came to be via an easement deed, the owner of the fee was probably compensated for the easement. If the 30' R/W came to be via map dedication (easement), it actually cost the subdivider to make the survey, the maps, the street improvements necessary to get the subdivision approved. The lot buyers also were not compensated for the street R/W. More likely they paid more per square foot because their lots fronted on a public street. If the 30' right of way came to be via implied dedication (prescriptive rights) the owner of the fee was also not compensated. The land burdened by the existing 30' R/W (no matter how that R/W came to be) isn't worth much because it is (you might say) heavily encumbered by the public rights. That would explain why Caltrans pays a nominal amount for the fee title to it.

Pie method?

If the 30' right of way came to be via an easement deed, the owner of the fee was probably compensated for the easement. If the 30' R/W came to be via map dedication (easement), didn't it actually cost the subdivider to make the survey, the maps, and the street improvements necessary to get the subdivision approved? The lot buyers also were not compensated for the street R/W. More likely they paid more per square foot because their lots fronted on a public street. If the 30' right of way came to be via implied dedication (prescriptive rights) the owner of the fee was also not compensated. No matter how that R/W came to be, the land burdened by the existing 30' R/W probably isn't worth much because it is so heavily encumbered by the public rights. What would you pay someone for land that they owned but basically couldn't do a single thing with? I can imagine situations where a land owner might argue that the land has more value, but I understand the Caltrans standard practice is to pay just a nominal amount for the fee title to the 30' easement footprint, regardless of how the existing rights came to be.

Forgot to mention the twenty foot neck of street ahead of the cul de sac that was vacated as well.