I'm working in a municipality in Pennsylvania that provides an informational hand out regarding unopened streets to the public. In their hand out they state " According to Pennsylvania Law, a street is dedicated to public use for 21 years from the date the subdivision is recorded. After 21 years, if the street has not been constructed and accepted, it is considered to be abandoned and the ownership of the street reverts to the abutting property owners. In most cases, this means that 1/2 of the street right of way reverts to the property owner on each side of the street. However, it is important to understand that although the ownership of the street may revert to the abutting property owners, all other property owners in the original subdivision plan still have private rights to utilize the street right of way. Therefore, the abutting property owner cannot block access within the right of way to other owners in the plan"
I agree with most of this statement except the part about reverting to the abutting property owners. Can there be a reversion when title of the lot owner never extended to the centerline, but instead stopped at their lot line where it joins the street? I sometimes have clients who own lots abutting such unopened streets but also have other means of ingress egress. They will request I set pins and provide a plat to the center of the unopened street. My response is usually "You do not have title to the center of the street, you may have some rights to that area but your title only extends to your lot lines as designated on the original plan"
I believe the municipalty is wrong in using the term "revert" in their handout. If the original title extended to the centerline of a street right of way (easement) then there would be reversionary rights, but in the case of a plan showing the lots stopping at the street, I say no. I believe the municipality needs to vacate the street by ordiance and deed the 1/2 of the street to the abutting owners. I see this happening in older deeds in my area. If there has been a street vacated by ordinace and a deed transfering to the property owner, then I will pin and plat to the centerline. Otherwise I will not. What say you?
If I am understanding this correctly, a land developer subdivides a large piece of land and transfers away all of the lots with streets being dedicated to the municipality. The subdivision thrives with owners being able to access their properties without all of the streets being built and they never get built. It sounds like the State statute is trying to make the unopened dedicated street go to the adjoining lot owners instead of reverting back to the land developer who has probably packed up and moved on and who would have no interest to the land because they either sold it or "dedicated" it. It seems (if I understand correctly) as though they have worked out a fairly equitable solution for the property to go to the only landowners that could benefit from that real estate.
I like the idea, but I can see your misgivings. it doesn't technically "revert" to a property that it never belonged to. But regardless of the poor wording it seems to me that would be the intent of the "spirit" of the law. (if a law has spirit, that is.) 🙂
Edit: re: it doesn't technically "revert" to a property that it never belonged to. ....or does it? Prior to dedication, the property was part of the larger whole. Now that the larger whole has been subdivided, wouldn't it revert to the owner of the adjoining property? It has been given up by the underlying fee owner afterall.
Okay, now I'm arguing with myself.....maybe I better sign off.
My understanding is that every property owner has an easement over every street shown on a subdivision plan, whether it was ever accepted by the municipality or not.
Boundary Retracement Principles and Procedures for Pennsylvania has a section on this: 4.8.3.5 "Roads on a Subdivision Plan"
From my experience with this issue, my only answer is it depends on which attorney, surveyor, planner, etc that you are dealing with as to what their opinion of the matter is. I have my own opinion as well. I have seen "paper" streets claimed by adverse posession, vacation by the municipality, and a few other methods, but I usually defer to the attorney because basically this is a legal issue. I will mark out the property boundaries as described in a persons deed. If they want a point set showing the center of the "paper" street, I will set it and note on the plat "rebar set, center alley" and let the attorneys determine what happens after that.
Now on to my opinion, I believe that not only does a municipality have an interest in unopened or "paper" streets, but ALL of the lot owners in the subdivision plan, creating the paper street also have an interest in the street. So, I believe that a municipal vacation does not necessarily relinquish all rights and claims to the proeprty. But, once again, that is for a judge to decide. I mark it out on the ground and state the "history" of the land.
Unopened Streets, I Disagree
Did they cite a PA Statute?
Once a plat is filed, any owner of any of the lots can use the offered right of way forever, whether or not it becomes a public street. To abandon such an offered right of way requires the signatures of all parties and approval of the municipality.
"Section 514. Effect of Plat Approval on Official Map. After a plat has been approved and recorded as provided in this article, all streets and public grounds on such plat shall be, and become a part of the official map of the municipality without public hearing."
Should such a right of way not be opened then, suppose an alley or stub street to unopened land is never opened, but ever lot otherwise has access to public roads, then the adjoining owner/owners can reclaim it per:
"Section 406. Time Limitations on Reservations for Future Taking. The governing body may fix the time for which streets, water courses and public grounds on the official map shall be deemed reserved for future taking or acquisition for public use. However, the reservation for public grounds shall lapse and become void one year after an owner of such property has submitted a written notice to the governing body announc ing his intentions to build, subdivide or otherwise develop the land covered by the reservation, or has made formal application for an official permit to build a structure for private use, unless the governing body shall have acquired the property or begun condemnation proceedings to acquire such property before the end of the year."
Per "Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, Act of 1968, P.L.805, No.247
as reenacted and amended."
25 years ago I did a plan for development within an unopened street. I was at the planning board meeting waiting with the planning board for the lot owner to show up. He never did. I was paid to date and never talked to him again. He never built either. He wanted it immediately. Oh well, he should have hired a lawyer.
Paul in PA
I can't speak to laws in your state, but here this is how it works, been through it many times:
A dedicated street gives the city certain title, but not complete title. Some famous court cases even went so far as to decide mineral rights in the streets of a town.
Dedicated streets when vacated automatically revert back to the owners of Lots in the subdivision that created them. The city can not decide who gets what because the rights are already in place. And a street along the edges of a subdivision if created in full by that subdivision reverts entirely to the lot owners in that subdivision and not half and half. Sometimes a subdivision creates a partial street say 20' and then an abutting subdivision comes along and widens it to 60 creating another 40'. In that case one sides gets 20 while the other gets 40.
So I would say the handout is correct except for the 21 years that would not fly here.
The lot is presumed to extend to the centerline just as if it were bordering a stream. If the call touches the monument, it is presumed to go to the center of the monument. Here, you have a conveyance bordering a paper street. Why would the developer want to retain the street, regardless of whether the municipality ever decides to open or maintain it. The developer would have to specifically retain the offered for dedication area in order to retain title.
So, if your map has a note that says all roads shown on plan are retained in title by the developer, then title does not go to the center. Otherwise, yes, set the pin in the center.
If they vacated it by ordinance then they either actually had opened it, or are giving up their right to accept the offer before the statutory time has ended.
It's "paper" till the municipality decides to run a sanitary or waterline through it.
Here it is routinely handled the same as a county road where the adjoiners have fee ownership with an easement across it. While it is true that the adjoiners never "lost" anything by the creation of the street in a platted subdivision, they are the only logical parties who SHOULD receive it from the municipality upon vacation of all rights to the street or alley. In the case of a street or alley along the outer edge of a subdivision, the entire parcel adjacent to the private lot passes to the private lot. In the uncommon case of such a street or alley along the outer side being vacated simultaneously with a dead end street that would be an abutter, then half of the dead end street plus the entire street or alley against the outer edge of the subdivision are awarded to the adjoiners common to both. On rare occasions, the abutter on one side of a street or alley to be vacated comes forward to request that he be given the entire vacated parcel, not just the half nearest him. He is told that the municipality cannot do that, but, that following vacation, he can approach the other party receiving the other half and negotiate an agreement to have that other party deed any interest in the vacated street to him.
For your reading pleasure. Seems to be relevant to the topic.
http://www.worcesterdeeds.com/PAPERSTREETSArticle.doc
Most of our roads are private. Ownership of an adjacent property either extends to the centerline, terminates at the sideline or other. It's all in the subtlety of the deed: by calls remain important. The developer may reserve the fee for phase 2 (though the courts ruled he'd still have to get permission from the other property owners to avoid overburdening their easement).
location of title vs quality of title. are you performing the research to verify they own or do not own to the centerline? are you sending them to an attorney for an opinion of title?
now, if other have the rights within the road, how far do those rights go? in 75 Tsongas passed a law for himself by allowing anyone with right of access to have right to install and maintain overhead and underground utilities (all to develop some land on Nantucket).
so here, if there was a paper road, any one in the subdivision would have the right to construct a road and sidewalks with sewer, water, cables and gas. they would also be allowed to cut trees that restrict sightlines.
at least some rights still exist in MA...
Whatever interest in the plat dedication language (easement or fee) has been offered to the City is the interest that the adjoining lot receives if the R.O.W. is abandoned/vacated. At least here in Texas, and I suspect most other states, just because the plat is recorded does not mean that the R.O.W. and the offer of dedication has been accepted. To say it a little differently, a recorded plat is only evidence of an offer of dedication. There has to be acceptance by the City, evidenced by acceptance, maintenance or use of the R.O.W. This seems to be what PA law is saying, except they've tied a time limit to the municipality for acceptance of the offer of dedication.