Lot Line Adjustment

Here we would do a voluntary lot merger of the two outer lots into the inner, THEN lotline adjust the "new" larger lots.

Your concerns have merit IMO. Isn't this also a title issue of the parcels being squeezed out? Perhaps you can draw it up in a way that will carry the load. I dunno. It seems like your gut it telling you this is fishy.

I don't like the term "lot line adjustment."

This sounds like a parcel density reduction and property boundary adjustment. As long as the process has the blessing of the planning and zoning gods and finishes with Deeds establishing the parcels and ownership I see no problem.

> Here we would do a voluntary lot merger of the two outer lots into the inner, THEN lotline adjust the "new" larger lots.

Kind of my thought too. Instead of 4 individual descriptions, have 2. Lot 1 and Parcel XYZ. Lot 2 and Parcel ABC.

I would think that some proper conveyance would also need to be fulfilled in order to complete the merger. Then the county can do their bit with parcel ID numbers, taxes, setbacks, etc.

If the objective is to actually reconfigure them into perhaps a N-S orientation instead of the existing E-W, then a re-subdivision will likely need to be done and provide for whatever access is needed for the rear lot.

Several ways to do it, I've just never used a lot line adjustment to consolidate another parcel into another lot. The real goal is to make sure that whatever we do we end up with a recorded memorandum, signed by an authorized county agent, stating the final lots are legal lots (have building rights). So it's move carefully and with the blessing of the county planner at every step. I haven't yet figured out what the new description will be. It seems to me that the subdivision needs to be amended or vacated or something or maybe just eliminated by new metes and bounds without reference to the old sub. I need to quiz the planner further, hope he has thought it through.

One interesting aspect of this is the county is charging full property taxes for all four parcels assuming they are lots when actually two of the parcels are not building lots. Be interesting to see what the taxes are after this but what the owner wants to do is sell them so it might not be long until they are built upon.

Here that would meet the definition of a subdivision and would go through the normal subdivision process, however since density is deceasing most of the normal subdivision requirements (access, improvements.. Etc) would be waived.

> Seems like every project has something strange.
>
> Have a client with two amended lots from an old subdivision (have building rights). On each side of the lots (west and east) he has parcels that don't have building rights (parcels not part of the subdivision). We can't subdivide these parcels as they don't qualify. So he wants to make just 2 lots out of the whole thing, expand the two legal lots to include the whole area. We met with the county planner and discussed what might be the options (vacate and re sub, amend the sub, etc.) They finally told us we could do lot line adjustments (the most simple from my view). The different thing for me as I've never done lot line adjustments that completely took all the area of an adjusting lot. So this will be a first, a new line between the original sub lots and then adjusting the boundaries out to completely wipe out two adjacent parcels, a lot line adjustment that makes 4 parcels into 2.
>
> I'm just hoping that this doesn't go south somewhere during the process!

I don't like it and think it's a perversion of the LLA's original purpose. Seen jurisdictions allow this: "3. A lot consolidation is limited to the adjustment/consolidation of four or fewer adjoining lots or parcels into three parcels or less." The same jurisdiction tries to patch things up by requiring a Parcel Map: "4. A Parcel Map is required to reduce the number of lots or parcels pursuant to Chapter 14 Article 4 Division 3 of the City of San Diego Municipal Code."

The part that bugs me is the mandatory deed exchanges (to get the LLA into the chain of title) may create an oddity. One could construe disappearing parcels(s) don't really disappear, they become 0 square foot parcels. Could a subsequent LLA make them reappear? "D. A lot unmerger is the ability to unmerge lots previously merged. All procedures and processes associated with the unmerging of lots shall be done in compliance with the applicable sections of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California.(Ord. 6968 §1, 2007)." What's the taxes on a 0 square foot parcel? Surely a merger process or similar would be more appropriate (although more costly).

But that's just me; if the jurisdiction "told" you a LLA is OK, then have at it! One thing that could go wrong is a changing of the guard with the new guy having different thoughts.

LLAs were originally conceived as a way for two neighbors to move their common line without a lot of bureaucratic hassle. Since then it's become a loophole technique to majorly reconfigure parcels without triggering subdivision statutes.

Long ago when the LLA statute first hit the books ("16.74.010 Defined. A “lot line adjustment” means and[sic] adjustment between two or more parcels, where the land taken from one parcel is added to an adjacent parcel, and a greater number of parcels than originally existed is not thereby created. (Ord. 602 (part), 1999).") we pulled off a LLA of an *entire* unbuilt upon subdivision, 60 lots, essentially to convert a bunch of same sized lots into a few McMansion lots and the others into minimum area poor folk lots, to increase the developer's profits. The "four lots max" statute appeared soon thereafter.B-)

> I don't like the term "lot line adjustment."

We use Relocation/Vacation of Boundary (or Parcel/Tract/Lot) Lines.

If between two parties, it would require a deed be attached, but if one party (or H&W) there would not. But, occasionally the parcels are acquired via different deeds/instruments (or even a will) and the individual title delineation needs to be shown lightly, but it is not difficult. There are far more problems with the l@w&8r$ screwing up the "all of" and "part of" parts of the next conveyance than anything else.

I think the problem alluded to relates to the misleading term. Once a lot line is established it doesn't 'adjust'. It can be vacated or a new subdivision can obliterate it, It doesn't move. Any new line is exactly that, a new line. In most cases the relationship between the lot line and new parcel line are part of the important survey evidence to be preserved. That is not an 'adjustment'...

I've done this before where I've "adjusted" 4 lots down to 3 or 2.

I agree that the terminology is odd as you essentially are "adjusting" a lot down to an area of zero.

I always suggest that land owners do a parcel map instead of the LLA, especially in cases like this where there are major changes to the lot configuration.

But, since the local agency has stated that this is the way to go, I'd say just do the best you can to make sure that it is clear what the end result will be.

One thing I don't like about LLAs is that in many instances, the land owners wouldn't follow up with the final perfecting deeds. And that would leave the approved LLA application as the only recorded document. Then, when they try to sell the land later, everyone is confused because the record title doesn't reflect the occupation of the land.

Some local agencies record the perfecting deeds right along with a Certificate of LLA that gives the "authorization" to adjust the lot lines. I'm always happy when that happens so that future title issues don't result.

A LLA or boundary relocation in Utah is the recorded deed documents. A survey is done and referenced to it's filing with the county surveyors but the LLA itself is usually a quit claim deed (could be a warranty or special warranty deed). Just filing a record of survey showing it was surveyed would do nothing. So I actually write the LLA deed. I usually like to have the client(s) have it reviewed by their attorney but many of them don't. We don't have a parcel map in Utah but it's something I think would be useful here.

I always recommend to every client that they file a record of survey with the county to show the results of the LLA. And this would also allow them to monument it if they wanted to. But very few clients want to pay the price to have me prepare a RS for them. I almost wish the local agencies would require a RS to accompany every LLA.

There is a section of the California PLSA that dictates what requires a RS, but it is interpreted pretty loosely by most of the local agencies and they rarely will state that a RS is required as a condition of the LLA.