I have always understood that the parcels have to be described as a single lot in a deed for them to be merged. In MA to divide that new lot would require a plan and endorsement from the planning board.
If I buy abutting parcels, and they are described in the deed separately, then I can convey them separately.
In the situation described above what prevents conveyance of either lot?
Dtp
In my experience, whether the merger is initiated by the owner or by the local agency, in both cases, a new description is recorded (either in a deed or a Certificate of Compliance) that has a new description that (should) clearly state that the land is a single legal parcel.
Individual lots need to stay individual lots, regardless of what goes on on top of them. Variances can be secured to temporarily void prehistoric requirements during the joint use of said lots. Those variances would be cancelled by the removal of the joint use. Go back to square one, you might say. Start over. Not start from some bastardized situation that no longer applies.
Say a tornado, hurricane or massive fire completely removes the high dollar structure that was located on multiple lots. The potential utilization of those lots should return automatically to the status they held prior to construction of the high dollar structure.
Take the Portland/Seattle scenario where higher density housing is needed. Say a strip mall built many years ago occupies an entire block. The current silly logic is that it is now a single parcel. It would make more sense to let it return to the original residential scenario with high density housing on each original lot.
skwyd, post: 372635, member: 6874 wrote: 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.
You're right! I was not aware of those sections. However, the local agency can't just go ahead and make the merger. It must provide notice to the owner with an intention of merger, and then allow a hearing if the owner requests one within 30 days of receiving the notice. Just glancing through the sections addressing an agency initiated merger suggests that they really have to follow a prescribed process pretty closely to get it done if the landowner challenges it.
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.
Around here if both parcels are being used as one, then they are merged per the zoning regulations.