Trying to find code on land division (California)

If it were anywhere, it would be in the Subdivision Map Act, a portion of the Government Code in California, but I don't think you'll find anything there. It's just understood that an easement or a R/W doesn't divide property. If the City had taken a strip in fee, that would be a different story and subject to the specific circumstances as to whether or not it constituted a division.

Don

Yeah, I've been digging through there trying to find it. I'm pretty sure there is something that specifically addresses it but I've been having a difficult time finding the actual section.

The specific reason is that a land owner has a parcel that has the improved city street running right through it. The assessor has two separate numbers for each piece on either side of the street. The owner wants to build a home on the opposite side of the street from his house and then sell it. I was hoping to find the code so I could definitively explain to the land owner and his real estate agent that it isn't a separate parcel of land that they can sell off. And to make it that way, they'd need to do a parcel map to divide the land.

It is specifically in the codes, but I don't remember where. From what I understand, even a fee right of way cutting through a property does not constitute a subdivision. Maybe Streets & Highways code?

I'm pretty sure it's not in the Subdivision Map Act, but the contrary may be shown.

I think that it is in the Streets and Highway Code.

Review government code (SMA) section 66424. I think that is what you're looking for. It discuss parcels being legal even if separated by roads, streets, etc.

THAT'S what I was looking for!

Thanks very much. I knew I had seen it, but I couldn't remember the particular phrasing so I couldn't turn it up by a text search.

Thanks again, everyone!

That's not really what you're looking for.
It only says that parcels are contiguous if separated by a road, etc.
It doesn't address whether or not the parcels are distinct.

Don

> It is specifically in the codes, but I don't remember where. From what I understand, even a fee right of way cutting through a property does not constitute a subdivision. Maybe Streets & Highways code?
>
> I'm pretty sure it's not in the Subdivision Map Act, but the contrary may be shown.

That's the whacked thing about government new public road R/W; they have statutes, internal rules and procedures they're supposed to follow, sometimes poorly.

What *should* have happened during this take, compensation for the take, and a determination that the two new parcels are viable parcels. If not, (min. lot size, access cutoff, etc.), then the agency must declare them unusable remnants, buy out the whole kitten-kaboodle (by force using condemnation if necessary), then declare them not needed for R/W and offer them for sale to adjacent landowners first, then the general public.

The State, County and City road agencies are the biggest subdividers of land in the State based on parcel count, hundreds of parcels nicked, swallowed and split in two for new or widening projects. All with 'nary a subdivision map. The "records" are kept by the agencies, again, sometimes in poor condition. The key is to witness new Assessor's Parcel Numbers appearing on the Assessor's Plats. Doesn't mean they're buildable parcels, necessarily.

Oh, the complexity of it all! Here's a good read:

CalTrans R/W Manual

Yeah, in my excitement I glossed over what it actually said. It is good information, but actually not what I really need.

It is killing me because I know I read this particular section not too long ago. I thought it was in the SMA, but I just can't seem to turn it up.

I'm going to keep looking...

Well, I found it!

Section 66426.5 (SMA) says:

Any conveyance of land to or from a governmental agency, public entity, public utility, or subsidiary of a public utility for conveyance to that public utility for rights-of-way shall not be considered a division of land for purposes of computing the number of parcels.

---

Thanks all for the input on this!

That only says that Public Agencys are exempt from the SMA.
Also note that it talks about a conveyance of "land".

I don't think that you're going to find exactly what you're looking for which, really, is just that easements do not divide property.

Don

I think it will address the issue at hand, however. The specific issue I'm having is that the land owner thinks they have 2 separate parcels that can be transferred independently from each other. The reason they think that is due to the fact that the Assessor's Map has two separate numbers on it and a public street runs between those two numbered assessed parcels.

I've reviewed the vesting deed with the land owner and shown him that it only describes a single parcel of land. I have the deed that granted to the city the right-of-way for a public street. This section states that land granted to a public agency for a right-of-way (which is what the road deed states) isn't considered a division of land for computing number of parcels.

This should illustrate to the land owner that by conveying this land to the City for a right-of-way it doesn't divide his single parcel of land as described in his deed into a different number of parcels (i.e. two parcels).

I run in to this problem regularly where land owners look at the Assessor's Parcel Maps and insist that they are a valid source for determining their boundaries and ownership details. It is frustrating, certainly, but a necessary part of my career. Most of the time when I explain to a land owner that those maps are for assessment purposes only (which it states right on those maps) they will understand and move forward. This owner is being a bit more stubborn in asking. He has gone so far as to ask me to prepare and submit a Certificate of Compliance application to the City. Having a Section of the California Code to point at and explain that this is why he doesn't have two parcels will be helpful.

That is not the right section to point at unless the conveyance really was in fee, in which case, you have a lot more to look at including the date of the transfer. If all you have to convince him of is that Assessor's parcels are not necessarily legal parcels, then just submit the application for a C.O.C. and let the city educate him. To save the application fee, ask them first.

Don

Yeah, I know the City Surveyor personally. And I know the answer will be that there is one legal parcel of land. I'm trying to save the owner a fee, but he's insistent. The thing is that he has a real estate agent working with him as well (and making my job more difficult). And the real estate agent is insisting that there are two parcels.

I am not under contract with the land owner yet. He was referred to me by a neighbor for whom I did a LLA some time ago. So I'm trying to give this guy some solid advice. But so far he's taken the stance (probably at the prompting from his real estate agent) that he's not accepting the "an easement doesn't divide property" explanation. And no matter how I step through the legal description of his deed and point out to him what is going on, he still asks why there are two Assessor's Numbers.

As much as I hate to say it. I may have to walk away from this particular task and let him go down a different path. It's a classic case of me saying, "You only have 1 parcel unless you can show me what lawfully subdivided it" and he replies with "prove that I don't have two parcels".

Good luck, Syd.
Sounds like you're up against a guy that wants to do what he wants to do and a real estate agent who's encouraging him.
I could tell from from your first post that your heart is in the right place.
You are right, they are mistaken, don't let them where you down.
:good:
Don

Josh was right all along. 66424, specifically the part that states: "Property shall be considered as contiguous units, even if it is separated by roads, streets, utility easement, or railroad rights-of-way." has been interpreted by many legal minds to mean that roads don't create subdivisions.

Don kind of skewered the discussion but his arguement is off target. i.e., if property is to be considered as contiguous, then it cannot be therefor considered as distinct(ly separate).

66424 is the go to statute. Again, it states that roads, by and of themselves, don't create subdivision of land in California. And its regardless if the road is created in fee or as an easement.

"Don kind of skewered the discussion but his arguement is off target. i.e., if property is to be considered as contiguous, then it cannot be therefor considered as distinct(ly separate)."

I'm not sure if you're saying that I said that or if you are saying that.
In any case it's wrong. Parcels can be contiguous and separate or they can be contiguous and comprise only one legal parcel.

That's why 66424 has nothing to do with whether parcels are separate, it only defines when they can be considered contiguous.

What 66424 is addressing is that a subdivider cannot create 4 parcels on one side of a street and subsequently create four more on the other side of the street without invoking the necessity for a Final Map rather than a Parcel Map for the second division because the parcels are CONTIGUOUS.

Don

"Don't let them WHERE you down."

I can't believe I wrote that:-)

Don

Thanks, everyone for your feedback! There is a lot of good information here and I need to use this forum board more it seems.

This is one of the things that I really enjoy about land surveying. I get presented these puzzles and not only do I get to solve them, but I have to do it without having a picture on the front of the box to tell me what the end result will look like. These kinds of challenges keep me coming back to the office very morning.

Hopefully I'll be able to point this land owner in the right direction and it will all work itself out.

Thanks again everyone for the feed back. And thanks, Don, for the in-depth responses. I appreciate all of the help!

-Syd