Title vs. Ownership, Section 1112
I am trying to understand the meaning, from a surveyor’s standpoint, of Civil Code Section 1112 in regard to ‘property lines’ or ‘property ownership’ in California. This section states:
"A transfer of land, bounded by a highway, passes the title of the person whose estate is transferred to the soil of the highway in front to the center thereof, unless a different intent appears from the grant."
Although this refers to a ‘highway’, I understand that streets and alleys, actually any right of way, is considered a ‘highway’ under the meaning of this section. Obviously the ’highway’ would be covered by an easement, precluding any normal use by the contiguous owner. Here are some issues that are raised in my mind:
1. When I survey a client’s property, even in a typical Lot in Tract condition, should the property line go to the center of the street, with the street shown as an easement? If not, should I include a disclaimer regarding Section 1112, to cover myself legally? I have never seen this property line/easement configuration or such a note on a surveyor’s map.
2. Is the word ‘title’ identical to ‘ownership’ in Section 1112, or is some other, very specialized, meaning being used? I suspect that ‘title’ has a very unique usage here.
3. What do I make of the phrase “…unless a different intent appears from the grant.”? If a lot in a tract is conveyed does this express an intent not to convey any portion of the abutting street?
4. Has the law considered the contiguous property owner liable for accidents in the street, over which the owner would have title under Section 1112?
- Any assistance would be appreciated -
Lewis Soloff
PLS CA
Common Law Rule Codified
> I am trying to understand the meaning, from a surveyor’s standpoint, of Civil Code Section 1112 in regard to ‘property lines’ or ‘property ownership’ in California. This section states:
>
> "A transfer of land, bounded by a highway, passes the title of the person whose estate is transferred to the soil of the highway in front to the center thereof, unless a different intent appears from the grant."
Well, I'm not in California, but what I get out of the statute is simply an attempt to codify the same principle recognized at common law. Were there no such statute, the common law principle that a grant of land bounded by a public road also conveys such title as the grantor had in the bed of the road, either to the centerline if the grantor owned land on both sides of the road or to the far side of the road if the original grantor out of whose land the road came owned nothing beyond the far side.
The reason for this is one of practical utility, i.e. so that if the public easement is ever abandoned the road reverts to a parcel adjoining it rather than becoming a separate parcel of possibly no feasible use.
> Although this refers to a ‘highway’, I understand that streets and alleys, actually any right of way, is considered a ‘highway’ under the meaning of this section. Obviously the ’highway’ would be covered by an easement, precluding any normal use by the contiguous owner. Here are some issues that are raised in my mind:
>
> 1. When I survey a client’s property, even in a typical Lot in Tract condition, should the property line go to the center of the street, with the street shown as an easement? If not, should I include a disclaimer regarding Section 1112, to cover myself legally? I have never seen this property line/easement configuration or such a note on a surveyor’s map.
The only situation that I can think of where it would be useful to delineate the boundary of the extent of the title in the public road would be when a vacation or abandonment of the public's rights in the road is planned. Otherwise, the ownership is, as a practical matter, more one of future expectation.
> 2. Is the word ‘title’ identical to ‘ownership’ in Section 1112, or is some other, very specialized, meaning being used? I suspect that ‘title’ has a very unique usage here.
I would think that the two are synonymous. Note however that the title is subject to the public's right to use the land for road purposes and so that "ownership" may be more theory than practice.
> 3. What do I make of the phrase “…unless a different intent appears from the grant.”? If a lot in a tract is conveyed does this express an intent not to convey any portion of the abutting street?
The common law rule provided that a grantor could make an express reservation of that portion of their land in the road. It sounds as if the California statute is merely preserving that element.
> 4. Has the law considered the contiguous property owner liable for accidents in the street, over which the owner would have title under Section 1112?
Highly doubtful since the control of the land in the roadway is surely vested entirely in some subdivision of government.
Common Law Rule Codified
1. When I survey a client’s property, even in a typical Lot in Tract condition, should the property line go to the center of the street, with the street shown as an easement? If not, should I include a disclaimer regarding Section 1112, to cover myself legally? I have never seen this property line/easement configuration or such a note on a surveyor’s map.
Usually not. One exception would be a R/W that is dedicated on a tract map and is also labeled as a "Private (or) Private and Future Street" then monumented lot lines (the ones shown on a survey map) will be to the center of the R/W. I do not think a disclaimer would be necessary at all. The map that you would prepare should represent existing conditions regarding the status of any R/W. The map should also be in agreement with other maps that show the RW and it's current status.
If a regular (non private) R/W is vacated then the "area of private use" would move from the pre vacated R/W sideline to the vacated R/W centerline.
If a lot in a tract is conveyed does this express an intent not to convey any portion of the abutting street?
When a lot in a tract is conveyed the R/W is not a part of the conveyance. It was already dedicated (granted) for public use when the tract was created and prior to any lots of the tract being conveyed to parties beyond the original owner/subdivider. A R/W is accepted on behalf of the public by the governing agency and before the map records with the county recorder. There is no intent regarding the R/W in a situation such as the one you have mentioned if the R/W is still being used by the public.
In other words...You cannot transfer an area that you do not have the authority to do so.
Common Law Rule Codified
Kent brings up an interesting point. What if the ROW was not taken equally out of the properties on each side? It could be all out of one property or unequally out of both. Does this law move the line under the ROW to be at the new center as a naive reading would indicate?
Common Law Rule Codified
No. The Statute restates a Common Law Presumption which really is a burden of proof. If it can be proven that the R/W came from all one side then the presumption is overcome.
