AI Assistant
Notifications
Clear all

Using a property line adjustment to eliminate or resurrect parcel lines

3 Posts
2 Users
0 Reactions
1,074 Views
bridger48
(@bridger48)
Posts: 114
Free
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

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.


 
Posted : January 30, 2016 12:43 am
eapls2708
(@eapls2708)
Posts: 1907
Free
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

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?


 
Posted : February 1, 2016 12:33 pm
bridger48
(@bridger48)
Posts: 114
Free
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

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.


 
Posted : February 1, 2016 9:38 pm