Landlocked parcel
I am operation under two assumptions, 1) the builder of the subdivision owned both the subdivided land and the lot you just bought and 2) The subdivision was built sometime in the 60's.
If assumption 1) is correct and the developer's subdivision common line between the two parcels overlap, the default would be that you have to honor the subdivision line as the buyers are entitled to the lands in accordance with the subdivision plan, even if that means shorting the parcel that you just purchased, but that would not apply to any other lands not under common ownership.
If assumption 1) is not correct it becomes a different ball game where not only Junior and Senior rights exist but long standing lines of occupation come into play as well and that's when you would have to consider either honoring lines of occupation or cheating headaches down the road by rejecting them because everybody wants what they assumed that they bought and some might be willing to take disputes into a costly court battle.
I find it difficult to believe that a deed for the parcel that you purchased does not exist for a couple of reasons. However, if as you said, it is just a leftover piece of the subdivision, the subdivision lines must be held based on the fact the resulting lot was a part of the parent tract of the subdivision. If that was the case, it very well could explain the lack of the deed as just an overlooked part of the final paperwork. If it is, in fact, a leftover part of the subdivision, the original boundary filed with the subdivision plans will detail what was left over.
In the end, as the buyer and want title insurance, you will have to foot the bill to determine what the property actually consists of and have a proper metes and bounds deeds recorded. It's in your best interest to do that and have corners set as well.
He describes this parcel as a left over portion of the original subdivision. The line between the adjoining subdivision and the and the left over parcel created will control, however, we both agree that after some 60 years, a hard look needs to be taken at the lines of possession.
My original thoughts about consolidating the lots were pretty much the same as yours but the author stated somewhere in the thread that he did not want to do that because he is thinking of building a house for his daughter and didn't want to have re subdivide because two dwellings on a single lot are not allowed.
1. I would think the deed to be prepared conveying you the parcel would be something like:
"All of deed xxx/yyy containing X acres, saving and excepting A , B, C, etc."
2. As for access, "Boundary Retracement Principles and Procedures for Pennsylvania” Knud E. Hermansen, 2024 states in section 4.6.2:
The Legislature has permitted the petition for and subsequent condemnation of easements for private roads. However, the road must be necessary (severe hardship but not always absolute necessity required) for the enjoyment of the property.
The several courts of quarter sessions shall... upon the petition of one or more persons, associations, partnerships, ... for a road from their respective lands or leaseholds to a highway or place of necessary public resort, or to any private way leading to highway... shall direct a view to bad of the place where such road is requested, and report thereof to be made, in the same manner as is directed by the said act of 13 June 1836 (36 P.S. § 1961). (Proceedings to Open Private Roads, 36 P.S. § 2731 (1927).)
This statute is meant to ensure that no private property is landlocked or prevented access to public roads. If a parcel cannot gain access by an amicable grant, the statute can be used. In fact, the courts will provide a private road even though the owner bought the property knowing access did not exist.
Fact that owner of property requesting private road knew his property was landlocked at time of purchase did not preclude right to petition for private road. (In re Private Road in Monroeville Boro., 204 Pa.Super. 552, 205 A.2d 885 (1965).)
All That being said, I would think once you own the tract in question it's no longer landlocked for you. You adjoin the parcel, and you currently have road access. So, if you decide to sell it, just grant an easement for access in the new conveyance.
Nice work. We just signed the agreement today on a 40 acre parcel that we are purchasing. It had an old road many years ago early 1900’s. Around mi 1930’s dot abandoned the old dirt road and stopped it. No longer apart of the row precriptive easement back then. Now the old farm was split via wils during this time hence a 40 acre parcel being land locked. In 1996 an ingress egress easement was granted of 12 ft wide along the old dirt road for our parcel. About 1000 ft. Had to purchase an additional 13’ from the current owner we are. Crossing so we can 1. Get a navigable driveway correctly built without causing issues for that owner and to get utilities aka power and fiber. We will be on a well and septic. Now if gravel prices would drop lol.
While I agree with the theory that, in essence, there is no such thing as a land locked parcel, there are two distinct differences to case law in what has been said about this transaction. The first distinction is that the land was the remainder of lands not used by the developer and was a part of the development parent tract and secondly, when the subdivision was approved and recorded, it was a simultaneous conveyance, ensuring that every lot buyer against the unconveyed remainder gets their due, based on what was platted and paid for. Add to that that the lots contiguous to the undeveloped land are seemingly dense in the distance between one another and the improvements go back 60 years or more on lines of occupation. The case law that you quoted regarding this situation are not addressed, however, junior and senior rights do exist between the unimproved parcel and the subdivided lots, who, in this case, would have senior rights to what they paid for, with the complication of long term occupation along the common line. Playing the Devil's advocate, where should this access be provided across the number of densely improved lots? Does a Judge throw a dart at the subdivision plan that have two adjoining lots granting a half of the access easement between the two lots and impacting their resale values, versus the lots where the dart did not land? Going by case law, the easement would have to be purchased and improved and there is no ruling as to which property owners would have to accept the financial offer.
I took this verbatim from the reference. I would read this as using the statute to gain access to a road. The case law was provided by the author where the statute was used. I would not think that the only option for location of access is limited to the parent tract.
That's where things get fuzzy and the case law presented does not address the situation at hand, with long term occupation coming into play.
I love engaging in conversations like this and hearing the thoughts of others, sometimes they are educating and add great value to the topic, with open minded people like myself and others walking away from the conversations and learning something. The conversation and debate, no matter what the issue at hand is, make us better at what we do if we are willing to understand the points made by others.
There is a case in MD that is realative on a tangent . Deals with a right of way and the location thereof. I have to find the case and I will post it.
