Boundary Line Agreements

[E_Page]

Not in lieu of a survey. A BLA is used when the line cannot be located with certainty, or where there is sufficient ambiguity to place it in more than one location.

If you can locate the line by survey, a BLA is not appropriate.

If you can locate the line, and the owners want it at some other location, then do an LLA.

I know this is not what your clients want to hear. They don't want to spend the money on a survey and are hoping for a cheap way to mutually agree on some line they identify.

In nearly all cases, you would need a survey to 1st determine if the conditions are appropriate for a BLA, and 2nd to properly describe the agreed boundary.


There is an article in one of the older Cal Surveyors (#90 - I'll try to attach) in which the author argues that it is appropriate to utilize a BLA where the value of the land does not justify a survey. I doubt that there is much land like that in CA, it's not the prevailing view, and I don't think it will work.

[pls7809]

One thing I've always heard is that for an agreement to be valid, the true dividing line has to be in question.

Evan beat me... and his response is longer...

[pls7809]

I would think that an RS would be required since the agreed upon line is not shown on any previously recorded subdivision map, official map or record of survey and you are using field measurements to establish it's location.

[mpallamary]

There are a bunch of cases on this issue. I have attached the nascent ones. The principal prerequisite is "uncertainty." As a general rule, the Land Surveyor is the one who makes that determination. If you know where the line is, you cannot agree to something different. That becomes an adjustment. An agreement does not necessarily involve deed and lender modifications while an adjustment does. Be very careful here.

There are a lot of forms out there to use.

Good luck.

[Gromatici]

You also have to make sure that the governing agency doesn't already have a process in place for BLA in their subdivision ordinance that you need to comply with. For some there is none, and it would be a LLA. For agencies like that, the County/ City Counsel may view a RS with the agreed boundary shown as an attempt to circumvent the LLA process and send you a notice of violation of the Subdivision Map Act.

There is another way to show the BLA without doing a LLA if the local agency does not have a BLA ordinance...

That being said, I've seen some interesting boundary solutions, even in recent history. Accepting fences, when deeds have patent errors and such. I'd make sure everything has been exhausted, including testimony.

[pls7809]

Eric,

An LLA is to use when you know where the line is between properties and then move it to where you agree to with the adjacent owner. A BLA (boundary line agreement) is for use when the existing line location is uncertain. I agree you need to know what the local ordinance says about it, if it does. But I don't agree that an LLA is the way to handle an agreement. You would have to know where the existing line is to do the LLA, to transfer from one owner to another. An LLA (with the grant deeds) is a transfer of property, where an agreement is not.

[E_Page]

In El Dorado County, they have used the LLA PROCESS to complete a BLA.

I did that on one a few years ago where there were two lines (one was the proper line and the other was what the county recognized because of a bad survey associated with a PM - long story). We had to do an Agreement through an established county process for them to wrap their minds around the correct line.

[Gromatici]

Also in Santa Barbara County, since they lack an ordinance addressing BLAs, the County has stated that a LLA must be done. That was the point of my post is that you should check and see what the agency is going to require first since it could be easy or it could be complicated. Maybe you don't want your project to undergo the tedious review process of the LLA approval (much like a final map review in SB where they try to impose development restrictions and such).

I you don't know where the line is, you can still do a LLA by describing both properties as two deeds, with a common line for the agreed location. Since there is no partial re-conveyance, all you can do is describe the newly configured parcels as a whole. Getting the banks on board would be a tough one.

[mpallamary]

There is a reason there are no local ordinances regarding boundary line agreements. Governments do not control them. Municipalities are not authorized to interfere here. Adopting the Doctrine of Agreed Boundaries is not a discretionary process and it is not a subdivision of land. It does not fall under the purview of government approval and this is so for good reason.

The oldest BLA in the United States involved a dispute between Lord Penn and Lord Baltimore. By design, government is not involved because these are civil matters between adjoiners and not subject to government review or approval. It is to be emphasized that this is an agreement and not an adjustment. The lines are not being moved, they are being agreed to. In order to agree, there has to be a basis for the line to exist in the first place. If there is uncertainty and you can prove it and both parties agree, you have the legal foundation in place.

If the requisite elements exist, I would urge you to proceed under your conventional rights as a property owner and do not seek agency approval. What are they going to do? Most will tell you that you have to get their approval even though they don't know why. They will probably argue with you that it has to be processed as an adjustment. That is because most agencies do not know the difference and they inherently believe that they have to approve everything the public does. That is not the case.

As with all things legal, seek the advice of a good land use attorney. They will find this forum and then advise you accordingly. (Tongue in cheek there).

[E_Page]

When I submitted that BLA via LLA process to the County, I made all these arguments to the CS. The CS agreed, but reasoned that it was the easiest way to ensure that all county records got cleaned up accordingly. There was no review for approval, only for recognition.

Arguably unnecessary, but the fees were reasonable, planning dept was kept in their cage, and it avoided a potential bureaucratic roadblock for my client in getting a building permit.

(Bldg Insp.: "Sorry, you need a Certificate of Compliance before I can issue a permit", CS: "That line your building to isn't the line shown on the PM. Yeah, I know there was an issue with that line when the PM was filed, but that's what the title company is insuring to, so no C of C." Client: "But that line has never been the property line, everyone has always (for decades) used this other line as the property line. How do I fix this?" CS: "You need to do a LLA or move your proposed house.")

The process we used went smooth, county happy, client happy, surveyor paid in full. Surveyor happy.

But then I have another survey I'm just (still) wrapping up where the client had two ambiguous boundaries, executed one BLA with no county involvement, and is in process of executing the other. Both will be reflected on the RS.

So depends on the situation.

[mpallamary]

I hear you on that one. So many battles, too little time.

[mpallamary]

The State of California is a property owner subject to the laws of the state just like everyone else. They regularly enter into boundary line agreements, typically along the shore line, through state lands. Their ability and authority is embodied in the Public Resources Code and their status is as a land owner. Some excerpts are below and some examples are attached hereto:

6336. The commission may negotiate with any person or local agency having or claiming an interest in any land affected by boundaries described by the "Preliminary Description of Ungranted Tideland Boundaries," for the purpose of reaching a boundary agreement. Any such boundary agreement shall be binding on the state and other parties thereto when approved by the commission. Any such boundary agreement shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder of each county in which the land affected thereby, or some portion thereof, is located. The boundary line so established shall be incorporated in, and made a part of, the master map and description to be prepared pursuant to the provisions of Section 6338.

6339. (a) Boundaries established by boundary agreements entered into and recorded pursuant to Section 6336, as to all parties thereto, shall be fixed and permanent without change by reason of fluctuation due to the forces of nature, except that any lands that may thereafter be submerged or become subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, shall, so long as such conditions exist, be subject to the easement in favor of the public for commerce, navigation, and fisheries.
(b) Boundaries mapped and described pursuant to this article, other than boundaries established by parties to a boundary agreement entered into pursuant to Section 6336, shall not be binding upon any upland owner or other party affected thereby, whose rights, if any, shall not be affected by any provision of this article. If any such rights have been previously determined pursuant to law, they shall remain unaffected by the provisions of, and proceedings undertaken pursuant to, this article. If any such rights have not been previously determined, they may be determined pursuant to any law existing as of January 1, 1976, or that may be thereafter enacted.
However, any such upland owner or other person affected by the master map and description may consent in writing to bind his land or any claimed title or interest therein to the boundaries so mapped and described. Such consent shall be acknowledged by the party executing it and shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder of the county in which the land affected thereby is located. The consent shall thereafter have the same effect as if a boundary agreement had been entered into pursuant to Section 6336, and the provisions of subdivision (a) of this section shall be applicable thereto.

6340. The inventory required by this article shall not extend to, or have any bearing upon, the determination of the seaward boundary separating lands belonging to the state and lands belonging to the United States.

6341. Any boundary line agreement entered into pursuant to Section 6336 or 6357, or any consent recorded pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 6339, or any exchange of land made pursuant to Section 6307, shall be conclusively presumed to be valid unless held to be invalid in an appropriate proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction to determine the validity of such boundary line agreement or consent or exchange commenced prior to January 1, 1977, or within one year after the execution and recording of such boundary line agreement or such consent or exchange, whichever is later.

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

Boundary Line Agreements are clearly recognized in California and they have a basis in law. The problem is most agencies do not understand them and they have no business involving themselves in them.

The Agreed Boundary Doctrine is one of the oldest forms of dispute resolution in real property law in the United States and with good reason.

Good luck.

[mpallamary]

See:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=125

aka:

CALIFORNIA V. NEVADA, 447 U. S. 125 (1980)

[mpallamary]

And country to country:

http://www.ibwc.state.gov/About_Us/About_Us.html

[mpallamary]

The elements required to establish title by agreed boundary are:
(1) uncertainty as to the true boundary line; (2) an express or implied agreement between adjoining owners to accept a line as the boundary; and (3) acceptance and acquiescence in the line for a period equal to the statute of limitations or until action is taken in reliance on the agreement which would result in substantial loss if the boundary were altered. (French v. Brinkman (1963) 60 Cal.2d 547, 551 [35 Cal.Rptr. 289, 397 P.2d 1]; Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church (1959) 51 Cal.2d 702, 707 [336 P.2d 525].)

The doctrine of agreed boundaries is intended to secure, repose and prevent litigation. Courts look with favor on settlements of boundary disputes by the affected owners and give them conclusive effect when they have been fairly and definitely made. (Minson Co. v. Aviation Finance (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 489, 494 [113 Cal.Rptr. 223].) [169 Cal.App.3d 339]

[mpallamary]

Here is a good article to consider.