A client owns two adjacent lots shown on the XXX Subdivision Plan. The client's deed describes the conveyance by referring to the lot numbers shown on the plan. Say 701 and 702. Wouldn't the contiguous line between the two lots be merged? The lots are being used as one.
Historic boundaries and conservation efforts.
I'm not sure what you're asking but yes, probably.
The trouble with merging estates is the baggage that can follow one parcel and not another. While platted areas are generally considered to be conveyed in a simultaneous fashion, the title of each property might have taken a completely different path to get to its present owner.
I am not a fan of lot mergers. I have seen too much get in the way. Generally with mergers, the actual common boundary is the least of the problems that arise.
I don't know what State you are in, but if it's New Jersey read:
Jock v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Wall 184 NJ 562 (2005) this case gives a very good history and synopsis of the Doctrine of Merger in New Jersey
The region where I practice, the subdivision lot would not be merged. In fact, if you want to construct utilizing both lots, you would have to file an administrative plat to merge said lots or possibly go thru an administrative process to allow 0 lot line setbacks on the appropriate sideline.
Thank you. I was once of the opinion that a merger could only occur by having the surveyor map the two adjacent lots as one. However this case has caused me to think otherwise. If the lots were conveyed simultaneously then the line between them is moot. The lots are now merged as if they were one.
The client has one deed that describes the conveyance. I see no need to produce a map that shows where there was once a line between the two.
Historic boundaries and conservation efforts.
not my real name, post: 372500, member: 8199 wrote: Thank you. I was once of the opinion that a merger could only occur by having the surveyor map the two adjacent lots as one. However this case has caused me to think otherwise. If the lots were conveyed simultaneously then the line between them is moot. The lots are now merged as if they were one.
The client has one deed that describes the conveyance. I see no need to produce a map that shows where there was once a line between the two.
Once a Lot line is created in a formal subdivision it exists forever - it may be subjugated by a formal combination, but it is never fully extinguished.
In Maryland:
Petitioner contends that, in applying Ridge to the instant case, Lot 11 and Lot 12 remain separate for subdivision purposes, but are combined for zoning purposes. This is, indeed, a correct articulation of the thrust of zoning merger: zoning merger does not cause a nullification of any subdivision that has previously occurred. It merely consolidates lots insofar as the determination of what can be constructed upon that land, or what uses can be made of it, bearing in mind the requirement that one must comply with zoning requirements including area, setback, etc. ÛÏFor title purposes, the platted lot lines may remain, but by operation of law a single parcel emerges for zoning purposes.Û Ridge, 352 Md. at 658, 724 A.2d at 34.
http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/coa/2005/122a04.pdf
There is a process for Lot Mergers in CA, written in the Subdivision Map Act and each approving agency (city or county) generally has their own spin or their own requirements as well. Generally it starts in the planning departement, ending with review by the city surveyor (or contract city survey) or county surveyor, depending on where the property is.
Silly people. Lot 24 is Lot 24 and Lot 25 is Lot 25. Just because I own both does not mean I now own a single tract.
Ryan Versteeg, post: 372511, member: 41 wrote: There is a process for Lot Mergers in CA, written in the Subdivision Map Act and each approving agency (city or county) generally has their own spin or their own requirements as well. Generally it starts in the planning departement, ending with review by the city surveyor (or contract city survey) or county surveyor, depending on where the property is.
MERGER, CONSOLIDATION, REPLAT. I see this process being done differently depending on the jurisdiction.
Some jurisdictions will allow building's built across property lines that are in contiguous ownership.
Some will want the lots consolidated into a single tax lot but this still doesn't change the # of underlying legal lots.
Some places you may have to replat the lots into a single lot.
Just like everything else in surveying the answer is. it depends.
not my real name, post: 372465, member: 8199 wrote: A client owns two adjacent lots shown on the XXX Subdivision Plan. The client's deed describes the conveyance by referring to the lot numbers shown on the plan. Say 701 and 702. Wouldn't the contiguous line between the two lots be merged? The lots are being used as one.
A surveyor alone can't eliminate a title line. I would at least show a dashed line there and the lot numbers. As noted above, lots can be merged for regulatory purposes, they might also merge by operation of law for certain purposes but that requires complete merger of title and there may be a mortgage on one and not the other.
Headnote: Two contiguous lots had been in common ownership. At the time of the common ownership one lot was used to comply with setback requirements of the other lot and used for the construction of a swimming pool as an accessory use. Thus, the lots had merged for zoning purposes, but remained distinct lots under subdivision regulations.
http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/coa/2005/122a04.pdf&apos ;">David H. REMES v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Maryland, et al.
Petitioner contends that, in applying Ridge to the instant case, Lot 11 and Lot 12 remain separate for subdivision purposes, but are combined for zoning purposes. Ûâ This is, indeed, a correct articulation of the thrust of zoning merger: Ûäzoning merger does not cause a nullification of any subdivision that has previously occurred. Ûâ It merely consolidates lots insofar as the determination of what can be constructed upon that land, or what uses can be made of it, bearing in mind the requirement that one must comply with zoning requirements including area, setback, etc. ÛâÛÏFor title purposes, the platted lot lines may remain, but by operation of law a single parcel emerges for zoning purposes.Û ÛâRidge, 352 Md. at 658, 724 A.2d at 34.
I'm sure someone here will be able to point at the specific ordinance, but I do know that in some communities in California, the local agency has the authority to legally merge one or more adjoining parcels of land into a single legal parcel provided that they are under common ownership. But they do have to notify the owner. And I believe this is only allowable if one (or more) of the parcels are below the minimum size per that zoning.
There is a process to do that here, but it's a resubdivision, less costly than a subdivision, but still lots of hoops to jump through. Often newer lots will have easements along them, so that's a complication also.
In some jurisdictions that I work a merger happens when the building permit joins them. For instance, when a house is was built if the owner owner used a legal description for the permitted area to be Lots 701 and 702 then the lots are merged even if the house was built entirely on one lot. If the house was built on Lot 701 and the owner subsequently acquired Lot 702 than they could be considered separate lots. Currently if you apply for a building permit on Lots 701 and 702 you now have to file a Declaration of Lot Merger or something to that effect.
This should be a legal issue that we and planning departments should be careful making declarations about.
Have a look at this: http://www.amerisurv.com/PDF/TheAmericanSurveyor_Pilchen-ParcelMerger_Vol7No4.pdf&apos ;">The American Surveyor
not my real name, post: 372465, member: 8199 wrote: A client owns two adjacent lots shown on the XXX Subdivision Plan. The client's deed describes the conveyance by referring to the lot numbers shown on the plan. Say 701 and 702. Wouldn't the contiguous line between the two lots be merged? The lots are being used as one.
No. Assuming that there are building lines for each lot, not necessarily set out in the restrictions and covenants, but in the city's UDC, or if there was a utility easement along that line then definitely no. A replat is necessary to make all city UDC regulations stand up and walk correctly.
skwyd, post: 372580, member: 6874 wrote: I'm sure someone here will be able to point at the specific ordinance, but I do know that in some communities in California, the local agency has the authority to legally merge one or more adjoining parcels of land into a single legal parcel provided that they are under common ownership. But they do have to notify the owner. And I believe this is only allowable if one (or more) of the parcels are below the minimum size per that zoning.
It's possible that some communities believe that they have the authority to do that, but they don't. The actual effect would be much like the ruling in the MD case that James Fleming posted. The lots would be merged for zoning purposes, but not for subdivision purposes. Where that makes a difference would be in a case where, as you described, one of the parcels is smaller than minimums according to zoning. The owner could sell it separately, and if it was created prior to 1973, a Certificate of Compliance is a ministerial act. Or, if the other parcel were large enough that together, the area would accommodate two parcels that meet current zoning requirements, the owner could do that with a Lot Line Adjustment rather than going through the Parcel Map process.
In such a case, the owner gets the advantage either way. If he want to build on it as if it were one parcel, for zoning, the local agency is already treating it that way, but if he wants to sell it in as many pieces as the number of parcels that currently comprise the property, he can do that without going through the subdivision process.
eapls2708, post: 372621, member: 589 wrote: It's possible that some communities believe that they have the authority to do that, but they don't. The actual effect would be much like the ruling in the MD case that James Fleming posted. The lots would be merged for zoning purposes, but not for subdivision purposes. Where that makes a difference would be in a case where, as you described, one of the parcels is smaller than minimums according to zoning. The owner could sell it separately, and if it was created prior to 1973, a Certificate of Compliance is a ministerial act. Or, if the other parcel were large enough that together, the area would accommodate two parcels that meet current zoning requirements, the owner could do that with a Lot Line Adjustment rather than going through the Parcel Map process.
In such a case, the owner gets the advantage either way. If he want to build on it as if it were one parcel, for zoning, the local agency is already treating it that way, but if he wants to sell it in as many pieces as the number of parcels that currently comprise the property, he can do that without going through the subdivision process.
In NY the courts have said it is constitutional and the lots can be merged. Even if you don't own both; all that's needed is to show you had control over them both (people tried putting in friend and family names).
In NC where I am at we would just do a recombination. $52 at the city and record a plat, everything all in one piece.
eapls2708, post: 372621, member: 589 wrote: It's possible that some communities believe that they have the authority to do that, but they don't. The actual effect would be much like the ruling in the MD case that James Fleming posted. The lots would be merged for zoning purposes, but not for subdivision purposes. Where that makes a difference would be in a case where, as you described, one of the parcels is smaller than minimums according to zoning. The owner could sell it separately, and if it was created prior to 1973, a Certificate of Compliance is a ministerial act. Or, if the other parcel were large enough that together, the area would accommodate two parcels that meet current zoning requirements, the owner could do that with a Lot Line Adjustment rather than going through the Parcel Map process.
In such a case, the owner gets the advantage either way. If he want to build on it as if it were one parcel, for zoning, the local agency is already treating it that way, but if he wants to sell it in as many pieces as the number of parcels that currently comprise the property, he can do that without going through the subdivision process.
I had to look it up. 66451.11 of the California Subdivision Map Act states that the local agency can merge the parcels if they pass an ordinance. Also, there is a list of conditions that must be met. So it isn't something they can just do "on a whim". There are very specific criteria that must be met, most specifically, that the local agency has an ordinance passed stating that they can initiate mergers under this specific California State law.