LLA Discussion

[pls7809]

Please view the attached PDF for 3 exhibits of what I'm describing.

This is an LLA that came to me for review. All I received was a 2 parcel metes and bounds of the proposed parcels and a plat. So I did some minimal research and found the current deed, a recent RS, etc.

Facts (from what I can gather based on receiving almost nothing)
There were portions of two old subdivsions (circa 1890's) within the existing parcel. The Assessor has 2 separate APN's for the one existing parcel, divided along the old subdivision line. The current metes and bounds preamble only refers to an old RR deed (circa 1890s) and does not mention the old subdivsions at all. The old RR deed does describe this lot as a portion of Lot 6 of Jones Tract and a portion of Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Smith Tract.

The current metes and bounds has a sentence after it that says, "This conveyance changes the manner in which title is held, grantor(s) and grantee(s) remain the same and continue to hold the same proportionate interest, R & T 11911."

Diagram 1 of the PDF basically shows what the Assessor map shows, except is is over two separate Assessor map pages.

Diagram 2 of the PDF is the current metes and bounds description (That portion of XX RR described in Deed recorded circa 1890 in Book --, Page --, described as follows...). The RS from 2007 shows this deed parcel and does not show any of the interior lines that the Assessor's map shows.

Diagram 3 shows the proposed LLA - supposedly adjusting the old subdivsion line to form roughly Parcels 1 and 2 shown.

Is this a valid LLA?

(my answer was no, but I did ask for more information from the applicant since they have the burden of proof - chain of title, title report, copy of underlying maps and called for deeds - That quoted statement in the current deed leads me to believe the record legal description for the property has changed at some point to the current M & B description).

BTW - I talked to the surveyor who prepared this and when I asked him about there only being one described parcel being adjusted to have two parcels - he said he was doing it because the attorney he was working for told him he could.

[bryanmundia]

So basically your question is this: "Is the creation of two parcels based upon the current 2007 deed which describes the land in a metes and bounds description as one parcel valid?"

If my assumption is correct, I would have to say that you are correct in saying no that the LLA is not valid.

I would like to play the devil's advocate though and ask why exactly is the assessor's map showing two separate tax parcels if the land is described as a whole in a certain deed?

I think before anyone can make a final decision, extensive research into the chain of title and history of the property must be taken into consideration. After I knew all the facts I could definitely make a decision as to if the LLA is a legal document or not.

Also is the LLA recorded yet?

[pls7809]

It is an ongoing review, not recorded yet.

[bryanmundia]

Do you think maybe there might be a parcel merger recorded somewhere that goes along with the 2007 deed description?

[pls7809]

Possible. That's why I asked for a chain. I also asked the city planners we're working for for any previous information on that parcel.

[bryanmundia]

I would be interested to see what happens with this so please let me know. If I listen to my gut, which seems to be right 99% of the time, and base it upon the current findings you have listed, I say that the LLA is not legal.

[LA Stevens]

Based upon the provision below, they need a COC before they could do an adjustment of a boundary line.

8762.5. Record of survey - land division
No record of survey of land shown on the latest adopted county assessment roll as a unit or as contiguous units, which shows a division of such land into additional parcels, shall be filed with the county surveyor or with the county recorder, unless there is attached thereto a certificate by the county surveyor if the land lies within an unincorporated area, or a certificate by the city engineer if the land lies within a city, of compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410) of Title 7 of the Government Code, and any applicable local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto.

[mpallamary]

There is a clear and unambiguous code section that speaks directly to this issue. It is not in the SMA or LSA. I will try and track it down. What it says is regardless of how you describe(d) and convey(ed) property, it does not merge them. You can convey property any way you want and for your personal convenience. By describing everything in the 2007 deed, there is no problem, no harm and no foul. The mere inclusion of the various lots in one deed, by law, cannot merge them. A merger is a very exclusive provision under the law that can only be effectuated if a local agency adopts the merger provisions under the SMA. A merger procedure requires a full public hearing and appeal process. I will look further.

[mpallamary]

CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE:

1093. Absent the express written statement of the grantor contained
therein, the consolidation of separate and distinct legal
descriptions of real property contained in one or more deeds,
mortgages, patents, deeds of trust, contracts of sale, or other
instruments of conveyance or security documents, into a subsequent
single deed, mortgage, patent, deed of trust, contract of sale, or
other instrument of conveyance or security document (whether by means
of an individual listing of the legal descriptions in a subsequent
single instrument of conveyance or security document, or by means of
a consolidated legal description comprised of more than one
previously separate and distinct legal description), does not operate
in any manner to alter or affect the separate and distinct nature of
the real property so described in the subsequent single instrument
of conveyance or security document containing either the listing of
or the consolidated legal description of the parcels so conveyed or
secured thereby.

This section does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory
of, the existing law.

****************************

I hope this helps.

[mpallamary]

We went through this process in San Diego 20 years ago. My how time flies!

Remember that your local municipality cannot declare a merger unless it adopts a merger ordinance under the SMA. Many planners and city engineers/county surveyors oftentimes "think" a merger has occured when it hasn't. This is particularly true when you see a situation like this; one deed describing multiple parcels. It is the same with an assessor parcel. You can consolidate property under one APN for your personal convenience. A consolidated parcel number is not a merger. A merger is exclusive under the SMA and there are very definite proceedings, not the least of which is constitutional due process which includes the right to a hearing. After all this is still the land of the free and the home of the brave last time I checked.

[mpallamary]

Here is the absolute best part of this story. Everytime I think about it I chuckle to the point I fall out of my chair. After all the noise and bluster and well-publicized hoopla, the city "merged" a crateload of properties all over the city. They filed their omnibus findings and decision with the county recorder but for reasons that are unclear, the filing was defective and there has not been any constructive notice of the mergers. Consequently people resumed buying and selling "merged" parcels because none of the title companies picked up the notices of merger. The officious document that reads like the Dead Sea Scrolls was done in two filings. As a result, instead of filing merger notices against each of the parcels, the action was not picked up! When you ask the City or the title companies about any mergers, they look at you dumbfounded.

It is the ultimate irony in the world of bad political policy.

In any event, I hope the CC reference assists in the resolution of this forum subject. Onward and upward.

[jcoffey]

Thanks, Mike for the CC reference. Nicely done.

I'm mostly interested in the definition of local ordinance in this regard. A hypothetical based on a few instances I've seen: 2 adjoining lots mapped in 1938, lots 1 and 2 of block G. Each lot is 4,000 square feet. In 1965, the owner of both sold both lots as 'lots 1 and 2 of block G of ...' to a single buyer. In 2002, the owner tries to develop each parcel individually. The City says that the minimum lot size in that zone is 5,000 square feet, therefore it is a single lot by the nature of the conveyances. Does the minimum lot size in the zone qualify as a local ordinance, or must the ordinance address mergers specifically, City-wide ?

John S. Coffey, RCE

(reading it back it looks like I have 2 questions in there..)

[mpallamary]

To John Coffey,

The City is wrong by definition. A Lot is a legal animal. Lot area is a product of zoning. Area is not a prerequisite to having a lot. An undersized lot is what is known in San Diego as a Previously Conforming Condition. The basis for this is simply the United States Constitution. Payment of property taxes utilizing the same and comparable tax basis as adjoining parcels is a de facto contract with the government under the Constitution.

If there is any question, petition for a Certificate of Compliance. If the city issued a permit even for a water connection, the issuance is mandatory.

We can talk more if you like. Bottom line, the city person is wrong. Period. Stop. End of discussion.

FYI, here is city definition for a lot. Note the cutoff date used to be 1954. The City adopted 1972. In Coronado the date is 1944. As S. Danner well points out, prior ordinances would prevail unless the 1972 date was adopted like was done in the City of San Diego and as exists in the County. Here is the Muni Code defintion:

*************************
§113.0237 Determining a Lot
(a) A lot is legal for purposes of development if it meets any one of the following criteria:
(1) The lot is an individual parcel designated with a number or letter on a
final map or parcel map recorded with the County Recorder [PALLAMARY NOTE: READ THESE AS SEPERATE ELEMENTS AND THAT IS WHY I INSERTED THIS HUGE COMMA], a record of survey map approved by resolution of the City Council and recorded with the County Recorder after December 5, 1954, [ANOTHER HUGE PALLAMARY COMMA] or a division plat approved by and filed with the Development Services
Department; or
(2) The lot has been officially determined as a suitable building site or
approved for development under the Land Development Code; or
(3) The lot was created before March 4, 1972 as a result of a boundary
adjustment between two adjoining lot owners wherein the land was
taken from one parcel and added to the adjoining parcel and no new
lots were thereby created; or
(4) The lot was created before March 4, 1972, held as a separate parcel by
a subsequent purchaser, and has at least 15 feet of street frontage or
other legal access to a dedicated street as approved by the City
Engineer; or
(5) The lot was held as a separate legal parcel upon annexation to the City
of San Diego.
(b) Any lot or parcel that does not comply with the minimum lot area or required lot dimensions may nevertheless be used in compliance with the applicable zone if the lot is a legal lot as determined by Section 113.0237(a).
(c) A Certificate of Compliance may be requested in accordance with Section
125.0210 to certify that a lot is legal for development.
(Added 12-9-1997 by O-18451 N.S.; effective 1-1-2000.)
(Amended 11-13-2008 by O-19801 N.S.; effective 12-13-2008.)

****************************
IMPORTANT NOTE: The city has a lot of the ROS legal lots out there. These are easily identified as the City signs off on them. I forgot to mention that the city misplaced all of its lot division plats. These were never recorded and apparently someone threw them out (A planner I am told). What that means is even if the city does not have a copy, if you find one they have to be honored! Some were prepared in connection with the ROS legal lots.

Also notice there is no area requirement. Area is zoning. Lots are SMA and the Constitution. Lots are Surveyors; Areas are Planners. One has its basis in licensed individuals and the law; the other crayons and construction paper.

Good luck.

[pls7809]

Mike,

Thanks for all the info. When I posted this I was hoping you would reply.

Ryan.

[mpallamary]

You are far too kind. Thank you. I am delighted to participate in this discussion. Thanks much for your efforts. They benefit us all!

[E_Page]

Great Info Mike. Thanks.

[LA Stevens]

Although the LS Act does not a address this scenario specifically, it would seem to me if you are required to get a COC before filing a ROS on a specific AP when the owner also owns the adjoiner parcel, you should have a COC before you submit or process a LLAdjustment on existing AP's owned by the same person/entity.

Once you have a COC of course it is a valid LLA. Beaware that many agencies will make them conditional and you may have to fight them on that. Some tend to overstep the boundaries of their jurisdiction.

[mpallamary]

Thanks Greg!

Actually I have a batch of them from the old Shuttleworth files.

But yeah, most agencies hide their good stuff from me.

;)

[goodgps]

Based upon the "sketchy" information shown, This looks like a Parcel Division.

Many Attorneys, refer to such parcel splits as "Adjustments" I'm not certain why.

The Submittal package to you must include deeds dating back to pre '72 or '68 or whenever your particular ordinance states. (enactment of Sub Act)

Did your planning Staff approve this adjustment tentatively ?

If so, under what criteria. ??

The Burdon of proof resides with the applicant. The rules are clear, as shown in above responses.

I would not approve this at face value.

Getem to do some digging. This adjustment may be legit, but get the proof to be sure. Dont make more cloudy title.

Just my thoughts

[pls7809]

Agreed Good. I have been in direct contact with the applicant and they are putting some research together. I'm not sure if the poor submittal package was the surveyor's fault, the applicant's fault or the planner's fault, but there was nothing I could do but ask for more information or temporarily reject the LLA without more information.