Legal Parcel Question

[PLS8153]

I have a parcel map from 1991 that created 2 parcels. The area surrounding the 2 parcels is shown as "Remainder" but the exterior boundaries of the remainder are not shown. The property is an old mill site and is now owned by a single owner who wishes to obtain Certificates of Compliance on all of their legal parcels. My concern is whether or not that "Remainder" area shown without boundaries merged any underlying parcels or not. There are several parcels within a 1000 feet or so of the parcels created by the Parcel Map that were held in different ownerships in the 1950's which predates any county ordinance or the SMA. What do you think?

[D Ryan]

Here's an article from a past issue of the California Surveyor that has some parallels to the issue you raise. See attached pdf (hope this works...).

[PLS7393]

"Remaining Parcels" are just that, the remainder (not surveyed).
A "Remaining Parcel" does not automatically merged the underlying title, so the existing lots still exist.

[Ian Wilson]

Not at all, Keith. Remainder (not remaining) Parcels were created legislatively to solve a specific problem. In agricultural areas, the property owners may hold large chunks of land for farming but not have the liquid finances independent of the land to meet emergencies.

For example, a couple owns 120 acres and farms it. The wife takes care of the family and the house and works at the local grocery store. The husband is the farmer and takes care of the farm. The husband dies. The widow is now land rich and cash poor. Much of the farm is probably under some financial burden as collateral for loans.

Without the ability to subdivide that land, leaving a Remainder Parcel, the entire farm can be foreclosed upon, leaving the widow with nothing for all her and her husband’s efforts. The Remainder Parcel was designed to segregate the farm house and a small portion of land around it to provide the widow and family with a way to keep their family home.

Today, I see a number of potential clients trying to use the “4 + Remainder” to get a 5 parcel split on a Parcel Map.

I am at a loss to understand Peter’s comment that the Remainder surrounds the two parcels created by the 1991 Parcel Map but the exterior of the Reminder is not shown. The exterior of the land being subdivided must be shown on the map in order to define the extent of the land being subdivided. The boundaries of the parcels being created must be shown in order to define the extent of the new parcels. What else is there?

If the Parcel Map overlays a collection of older lots created by an older subdivision map, all of the lots overlaid are extinguished and the land is re-subdivided. None of the old lots underlying the new map exist once the new map is approved and recorded.

Can we see the map? There is a lot more going on here than is being shared at the moment.

Ian

[PLS7393]

You are correct Ian, I forgot about the farmers wife.

Like you said, there is a lot more going on here.

[goodgps]

Some public agencies consider the "Remainder" to be a single parcel under the priniciple of "merge and resubdivide" all underlying parcels disolve.

Other agencies feel it is an un-surveyed portion of the total holdings and is not affected by a parcel map.

When we find underlying parcels, we open up options to our clients for lot line adjustments (called boundary line adjustments in some parts).

These can be messy, tilte wise sometimes but are processed much faster and cheaper. Clients often need to sell of refinance in a hurry or possibly lose their land. We try to chase these with a record of survey, and sometimes it is mandated anyway.

Ian, you told my grandparents story, except they had 640 acres. !!

[E_Page]

Unless I missed something in reading, I don't think that Ian's explanation hit the target.

In most cases, the remainder is a single parcel, and although not a part of the subdivision, it is a legal parcel.

If I read the opening post correctly, there are portions of several parcels that make up the remainder in this case, and the question is: does designating them collectively as the remainder automatically cause them to become legally merged as a single parcel.

I don't think so. Since they are remainder (aka NAPOTS = Not A Part Of This Survey), they are not a part of the subdivision and therefore not merged and resubdivided as other portions which are a part of the subdivision are.

If the intent was to merge them, then they should have been made a part of the subdivision and designated as a single lot.

[Ian Wilson]

Evan:

The Remainder is NOT a legal parcel. In fact, if you peruse through 66424.6, you’ll not that (d) “A designated remainder or any omitted parcel may subsequently be sold without any further requirement of the filing of a parcel map or final map, but the local agency may require a certificate of compliance or conditional certificate of compliance.”

The only reason to require a Certificate of Compliance is to determine the legal status of the parcel in question.

The Remainder is NOT a “Not Part” parcel. It is clearly segregated from the parcels being created by the subdivision map. It is simply treated as an exception to the “four parcels or less” rule for Parcel Maps.

The OP mentioned “underlying parcels” but made no distinction as to what they meant.

My point is this: there is something significant missing from the scenario. A subdivision map MUST include the exterior boundary of the land being subdivided. It isn’t a subdivision map otherwise. The same map MUST include the boundary of each parcel being created by the map. There’s no point in preparing the map otherwise. The only thing left over is the Remainder. Is the exterior and the interior are mapped, what’s left is, by default, mapped.

We are missing something significant in this discussion and that is a copy of the map in question. Without that, we’re shooting blindly.

[E_Page]

Yes, it requires a CoC, but it can be sold. And it is not considered to be a lot created by the subdivision. It is presumably outside of the subdivision boundary, which is what makes it a remainder.

As I said, I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that the remainder is made up of portions of several parcels, and I don't believe that they become merged simply by the fact that the individual parcel lines within the remainder are not shown. Thus, several CoCs would actually be required.

[steffan]

I'm with Ian on this one.
66499.20-1/2 and 66445d(2) tend to support that the boundary of the subdivision include the remainder and that all within the boundary is merged.
Note that the remainder boundary can be described by reference to deed, not necessarily by the normally required bold outline.
my 2 cents.
Jeff

[E_Page]

I'll review those sections later. Ian does more subdivisions than I and is probably right.