Hi,
We seem to be on a merger theme so here is a merger story for your consideration. It's about two contiguous lots of a subdivision and how they were conveyed. I did not make the subdivision. I do not favor making subdivisions at all.?ÿ
A client purchased two lots from a subdivision plan done long ago. He has one deed describing the conveyance as Lot 2 and Lot 3 of the subdivision. A very simply executed description without any fancy course and distances indeed.
The question is are the two subdivision lots now merged into one lot by the fact that there is only one deed? My opinion is that they are merged.
The client plans to build on the land and a town official told him he needed a survey, because, among other reasons, that he could accidentally sell one of the lots, causing a setback issue or other such boogeyman stuff.
My advice to the client is to tell the town that he already had the survey, that there are stone walls along the boundary, and, that the situation described could only happen if there were two separate deeds for the two parcels.
Also the town official is merely trying to transfer any liability in his or her decision making process. Sad that popular vote is the only consideration for granted public officials their office.
?ÿ
Merger of title, and merger of lots for zoning purposes are two different concepts. In Mass. your client would need a new survey to show the proposed building with offsets to the lot lines, regardless of one or two lots involved. If both lots comply with current zoning requirements, then there is no reason to consider them merged into one lot, unless the landowner deliberately wants to do so, and build the new house such that it would violate the setbacks if the lots were considered as separate.
Local government policy on this sort of thing varies widely, and may not necessarily align with how state law looks at mergers.?ÿ
For example,?ÿ in Alaska the lots can only be joined into one parcel by a replat approved by the relevant platting authority; however most, but not all, zoning authorities would not consider this a problem (unless of course one of the lots was sold).?ÿ
In other states the two separate lots may be deemed to have never been created if they were never separately owned, and may require a new subdivision if the owner wanted to separate them.?ÿ
?ÿ
I think there is enough information on the existing subdivision plan to show the offsets would be fine. There is no need for a new survey.
There is only one lot. The description was written to describe two lots that were chosen to be conveyed from the subdivision as a matter of convenience.
Do you think the attorney could have written a metes and bounds description of the perimeter of the two lots, thus ignoring the common line?
I have met some that believe a new map is necessary to remove a common line between two lots. I believe that is an unnecessary task. It is also an unnecessary financial burden on the client. If you can't figure out that the client owns both properties by reading the deed then you need more help than a surveyor can provide. I certainly do not want to be the one to draw a map that looks like all I did was erase one of the lines.
This is a local municipality question. Around here in the 10 jurisdictions I work in there are probably 10 different methods.?ÿ
In other words, you let political hacks do your thinking for you. Are you active in any discussion of how political hacks put the squeeze on property owners, causing them to spend unnecessary time and money for using their own personal property?
If I own one property can I subdivide it with without a survey? No, not in my jurisdiction, and that makes sense. Can the building inspector subdivide property? Apparently the Building Inspector thinks he or she can do just that.
Can the Assessor claim that you have several lots instead of just the one property your deed describes just because zoning regulations would permit the subdivision of your land into several lots. Apparently the Assessor thinks that too.
I am of the opinion that the land owners have rights,and that we owe duty to the land owner to "protect" them. If the actions of some public officials intentionally causes some kind of grief to land owners, that, in my opinion is unconstitutional.?ÿ
It does you no good to hide behind that jurisdictional difference.?ÿ
In Alaska it is required to vacate lines by plat by statute. The question of whether the line needs to be removed can usually be answered in the negative though, so it is most common to see lines vacated by plat in conjunction with the creation of a new line which would require a plat anyway. When a plat is produced that does nothing but vacate a line it usually because of an unreasonable local government or bank requirement.
A more common vacation plat is one in which a P.U.E is vacated, often because no one realized a structure was built in the P.U.E. until the mortgage application.
Mergers of legal lots is not common here because they are so hard to get in the first place.
The only one I recall doing was 2 Lots on an old subdivision (circa WWI roughly plus or minus).?ÿ The house was mostly on Lot 1 but some of it overlapped into Lot 2.?ÿ The client wanted to build a garage on Lot 2.?ÿ The City required the lots to be merged before issuing the permit.?ÿ It was a Lot Line Adjustment lite sort of process as I recall.?ÿ It just required a legal description which made it clear the two lots are one.?ÿ Of course in the future the TC may just pull the legals from the vesting deed so it could revert but if the City keeps decent records maybe they'll catch any attempts to sell one of the lots only.
What the Tax Assessor does and shows has little to do with legal lots.?ÿ They often divide legal parcels up into different Assessor Parcels usually because easements are taxed differently.?ÿ But those aren't legal parcels.?ÿ Sometimes one Assessor Parcel is actually several legal lots but they are merged for tax purposes.
If a client comes to me and says "I want to merge these 2 lots". I am going to follow the established protocol of the local municipality, whatever that is. To do otherwise would be unprofessional. The local municipality does not care what your opinion on lot splits and lot mergers are. They care that you followed the established protocol to ensure your client has a successful project.
I would agree with you if the two lots were conveyed in two separate deeds. In the case of one deed conveying both of the lots simultaneously they would be effectively merged by that deed. There is no way for the client to sell one of the lots except by subdividing them by creating yet another deed. Subdivision by deed only is not allowed without a survey map is our jurisdiction.
That is absolutely ridiculous.?ÿ So you are saying builders that come in and buy Lots 1 through 20, Block 1 and Lots 1 through 30, Block 2 within a single deed now only own 2 lots???ÿ I have never heard of such a thing.
You obviously work in a very different jurisdiction than I do.?ÿ Obviously the rules you work under are not universal.
?ÿ
So, I'm still trying to figure why I am so wrong on this. Let's say I buy two lots and combined they are three (3) acres total. They are described in a single deed of conveyance.?ÿ There is only one deed for both of the lots.
Now I want to build some green houses and do a little garden on my land. Then, a problem may arise if I accidentally sell one of the lots and wind up violating zoning bylaws.
A subdivision plan shows the land as contiguous lots and the boundaries are plainly marked.
Shouldn't there be a competency hearing for the land owner at the closing if this sort of danger was real?
How do I accidentally sell one of my lots?
How is this accidentally violate zoning by-law accomplished? Does a surveyor need to be involved to split the lots or can that split be done with a deed.
I should disclose that I am averse to subdivisions of any kind. If a client want a subdivision I will simply refuse the case. I enjoy finding the land and historic boundaries. So, that is what I do. I also do work in land conservation and infrastructure maintenance.
?ÿ
You are most likely right that the probability of problems is small, but I can think of a couple of bad scenarios. What if someone unfamiliar with the property inherits and then tries to sell the lots individually? What if taxes are not paid, the state ends up with the lots and auctions the tax deeds?
If I buy a whole block of 16 lots it doesn't preclude me from selling each lot, even if I bought them from the developer as lots 1-16, Block 1. They are not merged, you can resell them individually or together.?ÿ
What does Statute say? The local ordinance? Argue all you want, but if their demands comport with the applicable law... If not, take 'em to task - or more correctly, let your client take 'em to task.
In VT, prior to 2009 lots that were non-conforming (per the local ordinance) and undeveloped were deemed merged by operation of law (Statute). That changed in '09 when the legislature revised it to allow the Towns the latitude to decide how to handle these lots. As a matter of fact, a few of the Towns locally began aggressively taxing non-merged adjacent lots for what they are: fully marketable building lots as originally conceived. So instead of a $60,000 lot 2 acre with your house on it, the taxes were now based on a $58,000 1-acre lot with a house and an undeveloped $58,000 1-acre lot. We did a bunch a formal merger applications (typically with just sketches based on a original subdivsion plan - even when the ordinance didn't provide for regulation of mergers) to reduce client tax burden. The path of least resistance, you know.
In most jurisdictions you can split the the two lots by deed, provided they were originally created in compliance with any applicable subdivision regulations.
I don't think many think you are wrong in criticizing your local government's position. More enlightened jurisdictions don't apply zoning restrictions separately to individual contiguous lots?ÿ that are under the same ownership. Some do, though. What you need to determine is weather there is an ordinance (or statute) causing them to take this view or not.?ÿ In smaller jurisdictions talking to the decision makers about issues like this can often yield results.?ÿ
In many areas the work and cost necessary to legally merge the two lots is minimal. If that is the case, perhaps the cost has already been weighed against the probability of something going wrong. Knowing the history of land development regulations in your area can make you more valuable to your clients, and more able to get the decision makers' attention.?ÿ
