Type of plat/survey. the benefits thereof...
I'm preparing to do a small boundary/physical location survey in a community near me. Survey should be a slam dunk (note I said "should be"). Assuming that it is, the end result vexes me. The property comprises "parts of Lots 4 - 7, Blah Blah Subd". There is an existing survey of the boundary, but does not show the structure and parking, etc. The client wants it recorded, which is fine with me, I advocate recording. Anyway, the old partial (not parcel) lot lines are still intact. This tract can never be divided again due to zoning and lot size, etc. Should I approach this a "replat" as many of you call it, or a "lot line vacation" as we would call it here, and make it 1 single, solid lot. The only difference might be about $15 in plat review/approval fees for that. I haven't even suggested it to the client, so I'm open to suggestions.
If I don't get back to this right away, forgive me... I'm in a hotel on my crackberryam
Thanks!!
How about "Plat Combining Lots 4-7 blah, blah Sudiv", then label lot lines as "To Be Abandoned".
This depends on what the client is trying to accomplish.
If the client wants to accomplish a single legal lot then do a lot merger.
I think you are saying the current zoning only allows for one lot although if they may have multiple legal lots which are grandfathered.
I can't really say.
> How about "Plat Combining Lots 4-7 blah, blah Sudiv", then label lot lines as "To Be Abandoned".
Billy, you can't just abandon the lines here, you have to submit a plat with that action. I can leave the lot the way the are and there would be no problem, I'm just curious if I should take tiny extra step of "cleaning up the lots".
> This depends on what the client is trying to accomplish.
>
> If the client wants to accomplish a single legal lot then do a lot merger.
>
> I think you are saying the current zoning only allows for one lot although if they may have multiple legal lots which are grandfathered.
>
> I can't really say.
Dave, client wants a recordable survey, that's all. But I'm wondering if I'm not doing everything I can for him by not suggesting "cleaning it up". None of the residue lots are usable individually, but I do not have to do the lot line vacation to record, its fine "as is"
The differences in the plats would be small. I'd have to chage the paper size and add a few county administrative certs, but that is it. I'm leaning toward the lot line vacation route, but will ask the client and the locale about the extra fees.
I would make it clear to the client that his interior lot lines are going to disappear. He may not care or he may not be happy about it.
Make it understood up front.
I don't know what advantage there would be to a replat.
It's kind of strange you can't do a survey and leave the status quo as is? Maybe that's only if you record a survey. Out here we can survey something and file a Record of Survey which just reports existing conditions; it doesn't change anything as far lot lines or not.
Is there any advantage at all to combining lots? I didn't see that you pointed out any. The drawbacks may be minimal but could exist.
If you combine the lots, how hard will it be for somebody in the future to find the older information and make use of the old corner pins to help replace any of the outside corners that get lost? If you keep the interior lines, that info is all right there on your plat.
What if some future use down the road would find it more convenient to re-split the parcel? Maybe the structure burns down and neighbors on each side would like to buy part of this property to expand their lots.
Carl,
I do not understand. You say the lots are not usable as individual lots. So I am presuming that, if there was a fire and the structure was destroyed, the owner would not be able to sell one lot off as buildable. Correct? Since there are 4 lots, could two of them be combined and be buildable? What I am basically getting at is does it take 3 or more lots to be buildable? If that is the case, then it does not hurt the client to combine, however if two lots make it enough to be buildable, then you do a disservice to the client to suggest combining all 4 as, heaven forbid, if something happens to the structure the client would not be able to sell part of the property off to fund rebuilding.
If two can be combined to buildable, I map a survey showing all 4 lots as are with the structure located as it sits currently. If it takes 3 or more to be buildable, I think I would take the same map and change the lot lines to dashed and show them as a replat where it becomes one usable lot.
"Should I approach this a "replat" as many of you call it, or a "lot line vacation" as we would call it here, and make it 1 single, solid lot."
Unless the client specifically requested to vacate the interior lot lines don't do it. You could however research the advantages (ie property taxes et al.) but I would leave it at that and then provide what he originally requested. Virginia State law does not require a resub plat to vacate internal lot lines. this can be done by deed only.
Ok, I see I didn't give enough background info... Sorry... This crackberry changes how I think. Anyway, these are residues of 4 lots that a 2 new streets created in about 1959. The 4 remaining lots are about 0.2 ac. One is 10x53, and the rest are about 50x60 more or less. Bounded by 3 street right of ways. I'm not eve sure that if it brned down or got destroyed that it could be rebuilt because its so tight. I'll prob do it as "as is" now, but I appreciate the noggin' shaking... It helps me keep me on my toes.
