The client owns contiguous parcels of land being shown as 32 and 33 on a plan drawn in 1874 and were occupied by same owner for a long time. The house is on only one of the parcels, while a garage is on the other.
The client wishes to build a second house on the parcel with the garage. The city shows the house and garage as one parcel (32 and 33 merged) on the assessor database, but the deed describes the perimeter being 32 and 33 as shown on the plan. Since the lots are in common ownership they can be considered to be merged.
A subdivision is the result of new lines being created, however, the lines separating the parcels as they existed in 1874 were considered by whomever built the house and garage. If I draw a plan showing the line between the two parcels is it a subdivision?
This should be an interesting discussion, based on the policies in force in the various areas of the responder.
In my case, this would not be a subdivision. Simply calling out a specific number would be adequate. I could even show a new tract as being some portion or metes and bounds description that only involves one of the two numbers. That would not be considered a subdivision in my area.
Here in Oregon there is the time before the Subdivision Control Act of 1963, and the time after (technically, there is also the 10 year period the law gave the cities and counties to enact local ordinances). Before that land developers could do pretty much anything they wanted to do, after - not so much. There are lots of cases of subdivisions before that time were lots are mapped in a certain configuration, and then were sold and developed in some weird combination of lots and portions of lots excepting other portions, etc., etc.
In any case, once the tax assessor has melded these combinations into a single tax lot they are, for planning/permitting purposes, a single entity. In order to reestablish those internal boundaries -for planning/permitting purposes - you are going to have to replat.
How are they held in title? Two separately described parcel in the same deed. Or are they two distinct deeds?That could have a bearing on the outcome.
In either scenario, I would not why you could not sell one parcel with out any other work. Now it being buildable would depend on septic regulations, etc.
The two parcels are described in the same deed. I need to draw a map of the proposed construction on the parcel with the garage. The owner wants to build a house there and there are zoning issues.
I happened to be looking at other property configurations in the neighborhood and right next door there is a similar situation, but the assessor database shows both parcel lines.
I will have to talk with the city as the merger is really up to them. There is no strict rule.
My personal opinion is no. You are talking about 2 distinct and separate tracts of land. I’d like to know who gave tax mapping or the assessor the authority to combine them. I’d question them about where their authority came from.
Be the wolf, not the sheep.
Exactly. At first I thought a new line was needed, but I changed my mind, especially after finding a monument on the line between the two. We do have the doctrine of merger, but that is not law.
As long as both lots conform to current subdivision regulations I think they’re golden based on a cursory review of applicable legal cases.
What a subdivision is changes depending on jurisdiction so the general answers aren't very helpful.
For example, in Alaska, once a subdivision plat is accepted (or if a presubdivision regulation plat was recorded) lines can't be changed anyway except by the formal vacation process. Others have already described jurisdictions that have a very different view on this.
I hold the same personal opinion, but unfortunately our personal opinions aren't worth much on this issue, because local goverments and/or states may have different opinions as expressed in their statutes, ordinances or regulations.
Thank you to all that joined the discussion.
The reason for my question was that the parcels appeared to have merged. However the subdivision map of 1874 shows two parcels and as described in the deed, those two parcels are 32 and 33.
The assessor database does not show a line dividing the two parcels, but their parcel numbering system (called the Mblu for some baffling reason) incorporates two numbers in the field for parcel.
It makes a difference in how I file the map, that is, to file as a subdivision and force a meeting with the Planning Board, or file both as existing boundaries and straight to the Registry of Deeds without meeting the Planning Board.
I choose the latter. I will be filing the survey as existing boundaries showing two separate parcels.
To reiterate what I said earlier - the academic question of whether these should still be seperate lots or not is of no consequence. What matters is if your local authority will regard it as separate and issue a building permit, or not. Right or wrong has nothing to do with it.
I suppose that if you, or your client, don't like their opinion you could lawyer up. Good luck with that.
In CA most of this stuff has been adjudicated. The rules are complicated, but the law is mostly settled.
Sounds like the subdivision was done in the 1800s, so no, I think your map would simply be a retracement survey.
Short answer: It's a retracement of two existing parcels that may or may not require a new subdivision.
Longer answer: It may be wise for the owner to contact the planning board regardless if they ever intend to convey either of the parcels separately so that there is a clear understanding on both sides of what the expectations will be should that be the case. If your survey is for that possibility and the owner is under the assumption your survey will allow them to convey either parcel separately the local authority should also be on board. A written request for an opinion with a written answer would be best. I might go so far as attaching the answer to the survey. If the local authority would require a new subdivision of two existing parcels now would be the time to address it. Don't kick the can down the road. It's not your call and you're taking on unnecessary liability doing so. Surely this situation has been addressed before. If the survey is not for conveying parcels separately why is it needed ?
