Finding that some jurisdictions allow for elimination of parcels with only a line adjustment process, yet others are requiring the surveyor split this process into two independent transactions.
In a twist of the property line adjustment process, a 5 parcel contiguous tract of land had been adjusted in 2008 into 2 parcels with new metes descriptions on the exterior of each parcels, the present day deeds reflect the new apparently consolidated exteriors. An adjoiner now wishes to acquire some additional land within the 2008 adjustment by a new adjustment. This transaction would not be possible unless the old consolidated parcels can be resurrected to eliminate some related zoning restrictions. The argument is the jurisdiction has both an adjustment and a consolidation code, the 2008 adjustment to failed to apply for a consolidation and therefore my client should not be estopped based on an improperly filed adjustment in 2008. The 2008 surveyor has retired.
I would think that the landowner of the 2008 adjusted parcels would be estopped from now claiming that the properties were not consolidated or redivided into the configuration of the 2008 map. If it weren't now in the landowners' interests to move forward with the adjustment now being contemplated, or if the 2008 configuration were still considered by them to be in their interest, would they be trying to deny the effect of the 2008 adjustment?
Your point is well taken. It is only that the 2008 consolidation was not in conformance with applicable municipal code and the failure was in the oversight by the City that we were able to skirt around the estoppel issue. Now if my client would somehow benefit from the errant consolation would I leave a sleeping dog lie? You ask a hard question.
