NJ Tract Consolidation Description

What does your client want to do?
What does your governing authority (city or county) like to be done?

I’d say if he owns 3 lots, describe 3 lots.

You should discuss the options with your client and see what best benefits his needs.
If he is in an HOA and has 3 dues to pay, would a consolidation get him only 1 HOA dues to pay?

Assessors will sometimes consolidate for their own purposes and assess the value to all 3 lots as its current use. Ie.. 1 lot has a house and the other 2 are just yard, they will assess all 3 lots as residential. Some assessors will assess the residential value to 1 lot and assess the other 2 as vacant land.

Now, some city and county P&Z or Land Use departments like the property owners to go through a consolidation process with an application fee and their satisfaction of giving you the OK to have it done. A revenue generator for them.

That’s how it works in my small cold part of the world.

SD

Three Tracts, How Many Tax Lot Parcels?

They may already be merged.

What is the use/uses?

Any structure over tract lines?

Answer that and we can get to the details.

Paul in PA

The property owners that I know definitely want to keep all their property rights! A surveyor who casually combined three tracts under one description may be aiding the town in removing some of those rights. You mention that in the future the property may have to be subdivided if it is consolidated now. That could be a huge expense and some rights the owner now has could be lost. The assessor may do things for taxing property, but that usually has nothing to do with taking property rights from the land owner. Of course there are court cases about this very thing. So there you have it. Don't even think about combining these tracts on the survey or in the description without explicit instruction from your client. Your E & O insurer will thank you for that.

Dear Sub D. Vider,

I'm not sure what the client or town would like to do. The old tract descriptions seem antiquated and I was looking for ideas why a new consolidated description might have some merit. I do however, agree with you, and will prepare separate descriptions. Thanks for your input.

Hi John,

You need to read Loechner v. Campoli 49 NJ 504 (1967) and Jock v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Wall 184 NJ 562 (2005) to decide if the lots have merged.

Ed Pagan, Jr., Esq. has done a few very good presentations on the Doctrine of Merger in New Jersey. I believe he's a member of NJSPLS, if you give him a call he might be willing to send you his course notes also.

I'm emailing you over some cases and law journal articles on the Doctrine of Merger in New Jersey.

Dan

Three Tracts, How Many Tax Lot Parcels?

Dear Paul in PA,

From my copy of the tax map it appears two out of the three lots could be already merged. Currently, there is a two story warehouse and parking lot on the property but haven't checked the codes to see what the formal use designation is. The buildings are contained within the tracts and do not overlap onto adjoining tracts. There is a parking lot which is mostly on one tract but straddles onto another tract by about 10 feet.

Dear Luke,

Thanks for your post. You've clearly expressed my own reasons for not creating one description. Apparently all the posters have similar opinions. I was curious to see if anyone had a good reason for combining the lots but I haven't seen any yet.

Hey Dan,

You've nailed it! That's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.

I've always been of the opinion that you would have to do a lot consolidation or reverse subdivision and file it by deed or plat to "merge" multiple lots into one. You could however just run the outbound in the description around all three and say being known as lots 1, 2, and 3 in block XYZ as shown on map blah blah blah.

In New Jersey for lots to be considered merged due to the Doctrine of Merger, they have to meet all the requirements:

• They have never been built upon¹ or if they have, the use crosses the lot lines (are they used as one lot)⁴.
• They are contiguous¹ but not back to back lots³ (having road frontage on different streets) unless a structure crosses the lot line onto the back lot⁴.
• They are owned by the same entity¹.
• They were created before Planning Act of 1953¹.
• They are undersized due to zoning laws¹.

A no to any one of these items and the lots have not merged due to the Doctrine of Merger. They can still be merged due to, or with, a subdivision.

This is not legal advice, read the cases. Especially 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

¹Loechner V. Campoli 49 NJ 504 (1967)
²Pribish v. Corbett 105 NJ Super 407 (App Div 1969)
³Chirichello v Zoning Board of Adjustment 78 NJ 544 (1979)
⁴Bridge v Zoning Board of Adjustment 233 NJ Super 587 (App Div 1989)

Step 1/ Need Zoning Minimum Lot Size For Actual Use

Conforming use would not be factor in merger question.

Conforming use may be a factor in responsible municipal review agency.

Parking a little over the line may not be a problem if sufficient spaces for use are on the primary tract.

Say it is in a 3 acre business zone, but 5 acres are required for a conditional use warehouse. Different uses, different lot size requirements, possible merger in one case and not the other.

Sounds interesting.

Having appeared in more than 70 communities in 15 of NJ's 21 counties I know results can vary considerably.

Paul in PA