The California Appellate Courts have ruled that Subdivision Maps prior to 1929 did not create legal lots, there had to be a conveyance. These cases generally come up where someone owns a property (of course in an expensive area) which was ostensibly subdivided by a map but the lots were never conveyed separately by reference to the map. Naturally the County refuses to issue certificates of compliance and litigation ensues. So far the Courts are agreeing with the Counties.
So, suppose a block in a pre-1929 Subdivision is short (the lots were conveyed out)...should we be considering senior rights rather than proportioning the shortage?
> The California Appellate Courts have ruled that Subdivision Maps prior to 1929 did not create legal lots, there had to be a conveyance. These cases generally come up where someone owns a property (of course in an expensive area) which was ostensibly subdivided by a map but the lots were never conveyed separately by reference to the map. Naturally the County refuses to issue certificates of compliance and litigation ensues. So far the Courts are agreeing with the Counties.
>
> So, suppose a block in a pre-1929 Subdivision is short (the lots were conveyed out)...should we be considering senior rights rather than proportioning the shortage?
I'm not in California, of course, but I'd think it depends upon whether or not the description of the lot as conveyed was obviously made with the subdivision plat in view, i.e. all of the bearings and distances are consistent with those of the plat. It only seems reasonable to me that if it is clear that the description was prepared with the plat in view, then the plat can't be excluded as a common scheme or system of survey.
Is there case law in California dealing with restrictive covenants arising from some implied common scheme of development that would hold some later conveyance that doesn't cite the same covenants impressed upon the earlier lots sold to be subject to them nonetheless?
It seems to me that is a pretty standard concept; A plan does nothing by itself but provides the opportunity to convey parcels. If there are no conveyances calling the plan as reference then the plan does nothing by itself.
At least that's what I have been telling people. Same with easement plans, they don't create an easement without an actual easement document conveying rights!
Dtp
Being as the locations were performed as part of one, simultaneous original survey, I'd think that would be the footsteps you're following.
Generally, I consider these a retracement in which the lots were individually surveyed as they were sold. So, I would place them by evidence of original location first (including improvements built near the time of sale if no monuments are found); then I would consider senior rights if there are problems the evidence can't resolve; finally I would proportion the unimproved, un-monumented parcels that had nevertheless been conveyed out at some point if necessary (give them full width or a bit more if that makes sense).
These are plans of generally what the developer has in mind, but the final individual surveys of any particular lot indicate the intent of the conveyance at the time of the conveyance (the controlling factor).
If that's not California law, it should be:)
Okay, I don't know if this sounds stupid or not, but it seems like if a lot is sold with reference to a subdivision map, the layout of that lot would need to use that subdivision map and proportionate measurement between block corners regardless if whether a court deems it a simultaneous conveyance or not. The "legal description" is the placement of the lot in relation to all the other lots around it by virtue of the map (it seems to me). If a "senior lot" is staked incorrectly, it might be senior to any subsequent lots regardless, but more by adverse possession or laches or some other principle of the law (which after typing this, is probably closely related to senior rights).
> The California Appellate Courts have ruled that Subdivision Maps prior to 1929 did not create legal lots, there had to be a conveyance.
How are they defining a "legal" lot? Is this in reference to zoning ordinances, set-backs, minimum size issues, etc.? Surely the courts are not saying the "plat" cannot be used as evidence of where the boundaries of the lots are located?
> These cases generally come up where someone owns a property (of course in an expensive area) which was ostensibly subdivided by a map but the lots were never conveyed separately by reference to the map. Naturally the County refuses to issue certificates of compliance and litigation ensues. So far the Courts are agreeing with the Counties.
>
This sounds like zoning issues only.
> So, suppose a block in a pre-1929 Subdivision is short (the lots were conveyed out)...should we be considering senior rights rather than proportioning the shortage?
I'd follow Duane's advice in finding the boundaries. The rules of retracement are the still applicable (well, unless the CA courts have said otherwise).
> > The California Appellate Courts have ruled that Subdivision Maps prior to 1929 did not create legal lots, there had to be a conveyance.
I think the word that is missing here is "did not create separate legal lots". My experience with this has been that someone has bought Parcel A & B per subdivision created prior to 1929 and their deed describes it just as that. When they try to sell one of the parcels or perform a lot line adjustment, they are told they own only 1 parcel, not multiple, so proper division of the land is required.
I believe Kent and Mark are correct in stating that if reliance of the original subdivision map was used to construct the description of the deed then all lots shown should still be regarded as a simultaneous conveyance. Regardless if lots A & B is viewed as 1 parcel of land.
Brad Luken
Clearcut got it right as well, in my opinion.
I'm sure the non-CA people are having trouble wrapping their heads around the concept of buying two lots from a subdivision map but having only one legal parcel:-)
Don
> I'm sure the non-CA people are having trouble wrapping their heads around the concept of buying two lots from a subdivision map but having only one legal parcel
>
Don,
I fully understand that point. It is a result of the fact that the idiocy of bureaucrats and bureaucracies seems to know no bounds.
Interestingly enough, the current issue of Cal Surveyor....
Has a discussion regarding this very issue. It doesn't answer your question, but it is interesting:
Full magazine here: Cal Surveyor #179
The Legislature passes the laws, Bureacrats just attempt to implement them. There's nothing idiotic about it.
Interestingly enough, the current issue of Cal Surveyor....
That article is what inspired the question.
My first question would be simple. Is the County stating no Lot is created or are they saying no buildable parcel is created? The difference is huge. I would also say the County is taking on a liability bomb if they are attempting to put Title in turmoil to gain leverage. I'm not talking about preventing abuse or circumvention of zoning regulations. I'm talking about title established over 70 years ago in reliance on the map.
I learned long ago that laws vary dramatically. I'm not licensed in CA so I don't stay up on their laws. This still sounds beyond bizarre...
Since it's the survey on the ground that defines the parcels, you need to determine if the individual lots were staked when the subdivision was surveyed. In a lot of instances, the lots were staked with redwood hubs at the corners but there was no indication of points set on the map.
Lacking any evidence that the lots were staked at the time of the overall subdivision survey, treat as sequential.
That's the short answer. Whatever combination of documentary and physical evidence you've found can change that answer in just about as many ways as there are combinations.
Works the same way in NY and many other states.
To elaborate a bit. Some folks have tried to get around this by for instance putting each lot in a different name when purchasing. This can work, but courts have seen it for what it is as well. If it can be shown there was common "control" of the lots they will still be combined even if in differing names.
