Daughter is buying a new house. The driveway which slopes down steeply to the garage is not usable by her car (sedan), her car scrapes the curb at the edge of the street. Adjacent to her property is a street that goes about 100 feet and then is blocked off. On the other side of the street is an apartment building. On her side of the street is a no parking sign, and on the wall of the apartment building is a faded number for a towing company, implying that unauthorized vehicles will be towed. There is one car against the apartment that is non working (borough regulations say all vehicles parked on borough streets must have current inspection sticker and registration). Several cars park on that side each night.?ÿ
I first asked at the borough offices about the no parking sign, and I was called back later in the day and was told it is a public street, she can park on her side, and the sign was not a legal sign. I contacted the borough engineer to inquire as to the width of that street, as it looks like she could put a parking pad on the side between her house and the property line, but would need to access it from that street.?ÿThe assistant borough manager emailed me, said he consulted with the superintendent of public works, and in the last 40 years they have "never maintained the parking stalls", so in his opinion "the neighbor is considered to have a prescriptive easement over the area and is de facto permitted to exclusive use". They are also claiming they did not know it was a street, although even their zoning map and the county tax maps shows it as such.?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
I question whether a prescriptive easement can be claimed on a bona fide street just by someone parking there. Not that anyone has tried to claim a prescriptive easement yet, but the fact that the municipal official says that makes me think they don't want anything to do with dealing with the issue. Also, since when does a prescriptive easement imply exclusive use??ÿ
One might say to just start parking there (as per the first municipal official's recommendation), but I would hate to see her car towed and then have to fight it out. I am definitely going to remove the no parking sign, it was not placed there by any municipal ordinance as far as I can tell.?ÿ
An idle question.?ÿ How does a private party acquire an exclusive prescriptive easement to a public street??ÿ The fact that a municipal employee or employees are unaware it is a public street is immaterial.
Nope.?ÿ Sorry, not exclusive unless it was abandoned. That street is providing access to both corner lots.?ÿ
The apt building is simply using the street to access their off-street parking which does not start until off of the street ROW.?ÿ
I suggest your daughter do the same - use the street to access her off-street parking.
I haven't yet been out there to survey (she won't close until mid October), but I believe they are parking on the ROW and there is not any off street area in there (except maybe in the back where the white car is in the street view image below).?ÿ That white car is still there, with flat tires. I believe it is a 40' wide street. I have older aerial images that show the street going through many years ago, sometime in the past it was blocked off but no one at the borough seems to know when. I am waiting to get permission from the current owner to survey (not that I think they will object).?ÿ
There is conflicting evidence of the width of Leola Street...
?ÿ
?ÿ
Both plans were submitted in 1953, but neither included her lot (W. C. Limburg) but both show Leola Avenue. I have not yet found where that lot was cut out of a larger lot, the deed references this plan from 1922...and says it was a portion of lot 314. Note that some of those streets on the 1922 plan do not exist anymore or have different names. There is now a major state highway through the area. The "30 feet Given for Street" on the 1922 plan is Leola Street on the later plans.?ÿ
One of the problems I am having is that in this county only deeds back to 1986 are online, although the plans are all online. So I need to go to the county to research the deeds going back to when that lot was cut out of lot 314.?ÿ
Keep going, Dad. ?ÿIt appears the owner of the apartment building may have "influence" inside the borough bureaucracy. ?ÿThis is the sort of thing that really pisses me off, even when it's not my fight. ?ÿMuch like the bully back in grade school.
So I found out just now that the borough DID set the no parking sign (according to the assistant borough manager), which totally contradicts them not knowing it was a street. And I went to the courthouse and found out from everything I can find in deeds that it is a 30' wide street but an old deed from the apartment side in the 1950's says
"Subject also to a dedication of a strip of ground beginning at Greenlee Road at its intersection with Leola Avenue, preserving a width of five (5) feet throughout, and extending northwesterly along the easterly side of the property herein conveyed a distance of one hundred thirty four and 56/100 (134.56) feet"
But doesn't say to whom, although of course I would think it would be to the borough. That makes it a 35' wide street, because I cannot find a similar dedication on the other side of the street. I guess once I survey along Greenlee I should know better whether it is 30', 35' or 40'.?ÿ
?ÿ
I don't know if its possible but if you can have a look at the building permit records for these two buildings, there may be a clue as to when the street was created, and if and when it was made wider, and who was to maintain it.?ÿ
I don't know if its possible but if you can have a look at the building permit records for these two buildings, there may be a clue as to when the street was created, and if and when it was made wider, and who was to maintain it.?ÿ
I would contact the developer of that area and if the city did not accept and build and accept to maintenance that section of that street, I would attempt to purchase all or half that unclaimed street and put up a privacy fence, even if it went close to the bumpers of those broken down cars.
It does appear that the city has some part of including that street as it has a drain inlet that flows into their drainage system and probably back along there you will find a manhole for sewer.
0.02
The assistant borough manager emailed me, said he consulted with the superintendent of public works....
I suspect that neither one of these people is an authority on easement rights, to say the least.?ÿ Easement rights, prescriptive or otherwise, are not exclusive rights.?ÿ And how could one acquire a prescriptive right to use an area, a public right of way, that they already had a legal right to use??ÿ?ÿ
Nevertheless I think your daughter should talk to the occupier and explain that they are using a public right of way, and she intends to do so as well. If there is an indication that there is going to be any trouble she may wish to reconsider "closing" on the deal. She would be in the right, but is it worth the headache?
Get someone to deed that property to you or you can deed to your wife or another youngster and after the minimum amount required for notice of transfer of property and intent to claim the property, then deed it to your daughter and get a title policy on it and have it placed on the tax rolls.
This was a test question on the PS exam.
You cannot claim adverse possession on a public row. The town must vacate the street if you want sole possession of that land in which case, the row would be split 50/50 between the lots it fronts on as long as the map the street was created on also created said lots.
There is an Oregon Case, Dabney v. City of Portland, in which a person built improvements in an unused stub of right of way and eventually acquired title - or at least continued possession. But there were circumstances. The person sought a permit to build and was rebuffed. They went ahead anyway with significant and permanent improvements in stages and the City took no action. Later the city taxed the property owner based in part on the occupied extra area. Estoppel, not AP.
There are a number of streets (unopened, or only opened for pedestrian-typically very steep) in Seattle that were occupied by the adjoiners many many many years ago (think 100 years ago). They even have houses over the lines, etc. There is a kind of live and let live going on, no one really wants that fight.
?ÿ
At least two cases I have been involved with ended up with an adverse possession across an unopened street. The street remained, no adverse possession there, but there was an adverse possession on the other side, since the entire ROW was occupied, extended across the ROW, and into the other lot.?ÿ
