I've got some urban property that is going to be redeveloped. The record description consists of several discrete parcels, and runs over a page long, a cobbling together of several descriptions from across the ages and without common basis of bearings. The tax assessor considers the property to be several discrete tax lots. I'm thinking that it would be useful to do a 1 lot subdivision and file a map to clean up the title, amalgamating the several pieces in to a single lot. The overall parcel was recently resolved and monumented with a Record of Survey recorded. So there is little additional field work involved.?ÿ
The advantages to me, the surveyor are obvious. But would it do anything worthwhile for any other party involved??ÿ Lower taxes??ÿ Simplify development application??ÿ
In my local area, the answer depends on whether or not the landowner is intending to re-subdivide. If so, then it wouldn't make any sense to plat as a 1-lot "subdivision" (unsubdivision?) because you be turning around and re-platting the subdivision again in the near future. And actually combining them all into 1 lot could potentially reduce the future subdivision "parent tract" rights. Just my $0.02, and not necessarily appropo for that particular jurisdiction...
This kind of question can only be answered by someone with experience in your particular jurisdiction. Combining lots into one parcel does often lower taxes though.?ÿ
You will likely get a lot of answers that are interesting but not applicable.?ÿ
I may have told this story before but...?ÿ My dentist's office was spread across 2 adjoining parcels that he owned.?ÿ When he applied to put up a new sign for his business the city initially shot him down unless he consolidated the parcels first.?ÿ It seems he was able to talk them into giving him 1 tax ID for both parcels and that let him avoid doing the consolidation.?ÿ The point is maybe your city has these kinds of rules as well.
We did a job for a pharmacy owner who had acquired two adjacent lots from separate owners.?ÿ I did a survey to verify the boundaries of his original property, then each of the new lots and then wrote a description listing all three tracts into a single tract description.?ÿ Say he already owned Lots 3, 4 and 5 in Block 6, then purchased Lots 1 and 2.?ÿ My description for the total tract was simply Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in Block 6.?ÿ This satisfied the County Appraiser for considering it to be taxed as a single entity with the address being his current business address at 720 West Main Street.
His justification had to do with being able to retain his current address after building a new pharmacy building on the overall tract but not where the existing building was located.?ÿ This was very important for some bureaucratic BS that would cost him a fortune if he changed his business address.?ÿ He had cleared the procedure with the city before doing anything to ensure he took the proper steps in the proper order.?ÿ The city was more than happy to work with him as the tax value applied to the new construction was many times that of the two crappy old houses that were demolished.
Chime in to echo everyone else- local matters. Here you run into legal lot status issues, where assembly of two or more tracts with various zoning, density and parking requirements, etc, etc could result in losing some development benefits (setbacks, floor-to-area ratio, required parking, just to name a few). It??s convoluted as hell, and why I??m a surveyor and not a land development professional. But if that isn??t stipulated to me before I can ask the question, it usually means I??m dealing with a good client.
I ran the survey end of things for our Airport redevelopment for 7-8 years. 700 acres in the middle of town comprised of 1900s-1950s acreage, subdivisions, vacated streets, a park or two. I asked this question more times than I wanted to. The preamble to some of the descriptions I wrote over the years was two pages by itself. The ownership/deed table on the comprehensive airport survey had upwards of 150 entries.
