I am currently working on a project that involves a non-recorded plat from 1964. Various deeds have been created referencing the plat (one deed even having a scan of half the map included in the deed). My client (the original developer) still owns 6 lots (out of 10) along a road that he wants to combine into three lots (The resultant lots will not meet the required 1 acre zoning requirement). He had sold two of the lots that were returned to him in fee due a clause in the deed requiring development in a certain period of time. The county is saying that these lots were created.
The county is not accepting any legal reference to the old plat as creating any other lots....So in essence telling me that my new map it isn't a recombination but in reality a new subdivision. My question is when does a map actually become a legal document? I know a conveyance is needed to create the lots legally....Am I in affect being told that all subdivision plats done before any zoning or mandatory recording regulations are null and void?
Had the developer received formal approval and filed that map, those small lots would have some standing. That did not happen and I agree with the county. At best your client may be able to get a variance approval for three or more likely two lots. however mots ordinances read that variances are for the purpose of making lots useable that would be a hardship to develop otherwise. But you get no credit for a created hardship.
I do hope that you had fully considered zoning requirements before you entered into an appropriately worded contract to do his application.
That time requirement clause is an indication that the developer knew there could be trouble ahead.
By the way, a record plat does not necessarily imply a record lot. Lots sold to a variety of owners are most often considered record lots, but if the developer holds on to a series of them they may not be considered record lots.
Paul in PA
This is most likely a state by state and county within that state type of decision.
Here, I would be looking to see if the Register of Deeds created an indexing system based on the title of the subdivision and the appraisers office did appraisals on each lot so the country treasurer could send out property tax statements for each lot separately from the adjoining lots.
From my understanding of things, the County is correct; because the map was not recorded, your client does not have 6 lots. The fact that previous deeds may have mentioned the un-recorded map in passing, does not make the lots legal. I am guessing that the lots that were sold were done with metes and bounds descriptions, not simply a lot and block type as there is no recorded map to refer to.
Were they given separate tax ID parcels?
roger_LS, post: 403720, member: 11550 wrote: From my understanding of things, the County is correct; because the map was not recorded, your client does not have 6 lots. The fact that previous deeds may have mentioned the un-recorded map in passing, does not make the lots legal. I am guessing that the lots that were sold were done with metes and bounds descriptions, not simply a lot and block type as there is no recorded map to refer to.
Most are conveyed by M&B around here. Sadly there are some record conveyances here in Oklahoma for Lots referenced in an unrecorded plat. The "newest" I've seen was the early sixties, but most near all of the rest were pre-'40s. Title companies and lenders don't like them either. And even if someone over the years had the smarts to get a survey of their "lot" and record it; title companies still act like the property is radioactive.
One such property that was developed required a current platting by the municipality. That required a dozen property owners to get involved...along with their attorneys. I think part of the area even had to make it through a lengthy quiet title action. One saving grace was there was actually a copy of the unrecorded plat on file at an abstracter's office. Most of these I've seen either have no drawing or incomplete. They are a pain to work with.
There have been many properties that were subdivided and the original drawing was never recorded.
They try it even today.
I see the "unrecorded subdivision" term used.
Another thing I have see is a reference to "bearing of this boundary from plat drawn by some surveyor dated June 1, 2012".
Is that for real, can he actually say that?
Now, does that make this particular drawing a plat of public record now?
How do I get my copy?
:8ball:
When the job ended up on my desk, I was told the plat was recorded....Since then I learned it wasn't other than references in deeds. Strangely enough about half of the other lots (there are more lots than the 10 in my block of the plat) have M&B descriptions referencing the plat and the others reference just the lot number and the unrecorded plat.
Thank you for your input and I do agree with you all....I just hate to see a document that met the requirements of the time no longer being accepted as a legal document.
I would be interested to hear a legal opinion. Not an opinion by end users
If a document or plat was used (called)in a legal contract such as a sale of a lot or another matter (no matter how described), even if not attached or recorded, doesn't that make it a legal document.
Does intent of various parties at various times make it a legal document?
I recently discovered by reading that "intent" of parties in legal Matt is situational in nature. I take that to mean it can be proven with circumstantial evidence.
I would seek a attorney's opinion before
the p&z opinion even if it came from
their attorney.
"I just hate to see a document that met the requirements of the time no longer being accepted as a legal document."
Around here we have plats dating back to the 1700's recorded, whether they met some requirement or not. the recording is what makes it a legal document. I have worked in some subdivisions where the only record document is in the hands of an owner's association, but as far as I know all lot deeds were recorded.
It is not that the map is not considered a legal document, as it would most likely be accepted in court to resolve a dispute between lot owners. The fact is that at some time in the past the lots may have been legal, but undeveloped lots that do not meet current standards and are in common ownership are considered merged. If three of those merged lots meet or are close (deminimis) to current standards, then you have a reasonable case.
Quite often individual undeveloped los are picked up by adjacent homeowners for a song.
Paul in PA
Am I to understand that the lots that were conveyed by the original owner are accepted by the county and that the county is contending that the lots not previous conveyed are not being recognized as subdivided because the S/D plat was not recorded? This would mean that the plat is recognized for the individual conveyances but a S/D was not created. If the County never accepted the S/D, it seems reasonable that they are not required to recognize the remaining lots as a S/D. The recombination to create 1 acre lots would be unnecessary if the S/D was approved, as it would be held to the requirements at the time it was accepted by the county. If this is the case, the county does not seem unreasonable.
In my state an unrecorded plat has no legal standing whatsoever. This is true whether it is referenced in other documents or not.
In my state a document is legally recorded at the moment the Recorder assigns it a document number.
Robert Hill, post: 403763, member: 378 wrote: I would be interested to hear a legal opinion. Not an opinion by end users
If a document or plat was used (called)in a legal contract such as a sale of a lot or another matter (no matter how described), even if not attached or recorded, doesn't that make it a legal document.
Does intent of various parties at various times make it a legal document?
I recently discovered by reading that "intent" of parties in legal Matt is situational in nature. I take that to mean it can be proven with circumstantial evidence.
I would seek a attorney's opinion before
the p&z opinion even if it came from
their attorney.
"If a document or plat was used (called)in a legal contract such as a sale of a lot or another matter (no matter how described), even if not attached or recorded, doesn't that make it a legal document."
No, at least not here.
I'm sure everywhere is different, but here in CA, before 1972 when major changes were made to what is called the Subdivision Map Act, parcels that existed in the record at some point prior to '72 have the chance to be recognized as legal parcels even if they currently don't have separate Assessor's Parcel Numbers (tax ID Nos.) This would be consistent with your County recognizing that those two parcels that had been granted, then returned to the original subdivider are legal while the other lots shown on the unrecorded map are not.
I hate getting into "dedicated streets" discussion, but does the unrecorded map have any streets created on it? Does the County or City maintain those streets, or do the local property owners pay for the street maintenance through homeowners' fees.
