Split parcels

[Dave Lindell]

Are parcels that are split by roads, alleys, channels, etc. now considered two, separate, distinct parcels?

(I'd swear I read this somewhere and for the life of me I can't find it again! Senior moment.)

[Stan_K]

I'm only familiar with 66426.5 which says a conveyance to a Public Enity does not create two parcels.

Did I miss a change in the laws?

[E_Page]

Heard a rumor that there is legislation, or proposed legislation being considered to make it so.

Until then, still one legal parcel.

[Gary O]

Here ya go.....

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bil ... oduced.pdf

What I really like about it is:

"Property shall not be considered as contiguous units and
shall be considered separate parcels, if the parcels are separated
by any of the following:

(C) A utility easement." (??????????)

"Hell no, you don't need no map! Just create utility easements!

[mpallamary]

A road dies not divide property as it is still considered contiguos.

My friend Mike Durkee likes to argue this one though.

SMA:

66424. "Subdivision" means the division, by any subdivider, of any
unit or units of improved or unimproved land, or any portion thereof,
shown on the latest equalized county assessment roll as a unit or as
contiguous units, for the purpose of sale, lease or financing,
whether immediate or future. Property shall be considered as
contiguous units, even if it is separated by roads, streets, utility
easement or railroad rights-of-way. "Subdivision" includes a
condominium project, as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 1351 of
the Civil Code, a community apartment project, as defined in
subdivision (d) of Section 1351 of the Civil Code, or the conversion
of five or more existing dwelling units to a stock cooperative, as
defined in subdivision (m) of Section 1351 of the Civil Code.

Who knows what any new law will do.

[GWinglovitz]

I have a PM for condominium purposes that is merging 7 seperate APN's. The municipality is requiring that right-of-way for public street purposes be dedicated through the project by the PM. The developer wants the project to be all one parcel. I'm thinking of labeling the area on the map outside of the public street "Parcel 1" and "Portion of Parcel 1" even though the public street is between them. The reason for the one parcel is for condominium plan and financing reasons.

Does anyone have any input on this?

[Peter Ehlert]

Not an issue at all... Just say on the map that it is a one lot for condo purposes, label both sides as a portion of Parcel 1 if that makes them happy.
If you dedicate an easement for the right-of-way it would be a moot point anyway... most agencies don't really want the fee, just the control over the property.

SMA Section 66424: ... Property shall be considered as contiguous units, even if it is separated by roads, streets, utility easement or railroad rights-of-way...

[subman]

Here is how our mapping standards address this issue (see pdf)

[mpallamary]

Parcel 1 is depicted with a roadway running down the middle. No problem as far as I can see.

[GWinglovitz]

Does it matter what wording is used for the dedication of the streets to the City on the map? The wording used under the Owner's Certificate is "...We hereby dedicate to the public for public street and public utility easement purposes...". It doesn't say it is a "fee" dedication so I think the one parcel arguement still holds?

[pls7809]

http://www.californiasurveyors.org/clsa ... php?t=3241

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bil ... sm_v98.pdf

AB 2105 has changed since the version that Gary posted above. It will still have a huge impact, IMO. But like Evan said, until it's approved there is still only one parcel.

[Peter Ehlert]

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
government code
66424
that will lead you to the code as it exists at any point is time with minor delay... the text of an AB or SB is difficult to read without the entire chain of revisions, and are just proposals, not yet law.

[D Ryan]

Suggestion:
Use dashed lines and clearly indicate in the dedication wording that it is an easement for public street purposes.

[Peter Ehlert]

The one parcel argument still holds, easement or fee.

--- side issue ---
A factor to consider is Reversionary Rights: who owns it if it is vacated/abandoned at some point?
If it is Fee, the public agency owns it and can use it as they like. If it is easement, then it would revert to the adjoiner.
It is your task to inform the owner of the differences so that they can make an informed decision.

To specify a specific use (i.e. Road, Street, Utility, etc.) indicates an Easement, if no use is given then a Fee interest is being conveyed.

Boilerplate language can be confusing and lead to arguments in the future. Combining phrases like “for public street and public utility easement purposes” could lead to an argument that the former is conveyed in Fee, and the latter in Easement.
If you have a workable agency perhaps you could substitute "...We hereby dedicate to the public an easement for public street purposes and a public utility easement purposes..." if that is what you actually want.

I have seen entire shopping centers reconfigured and downsized around the remnants of former streets because the Lender was being very conservative despite the liberal view of the public agency.

Fun Stuff! If you are planning to be in land development attend all the Durkee seminars you can. If nothing else he is always a great speaker.