Old Plats, Legal Lots, certificate of compliance

[JasonCamit]

I need to determine if the lots created on a Plat map that was recorded in 1909 are legal lots. I know that there has been discussion in the survey/engineering industry about the legality of lots created on old plats, but I do not know what the criteria is to make this determination. Does anyone have any info/thoughts?

[goodgps]

Well of course they are legal lots if the map was recorded.

But perhaps your question may be ? are they buildable ?

Many communities have adopted laws that require antiquated subdivisions to be developed to current standards before they can be built. This requirement is usually a stumbling block for a developer.
Many of these antiquated subdivisions now lie in Large Acreage zones. and away from municipal utilities. Very expensive to bring Sewer and storm to them. It is also expensive to create area of benefit districts for these utilities, due to maintenance fees, and a whole number of other "stuff" that i wont get into.

To answer your question . . .YES. . . legal :-)
(refer to the SMA quotes that the real smart guys will post here in a while)


good

[subman]

I think a key factor is when the individual lots were deeded to a subsequent owner. There have been cases as I recall where the original lots of the antiquated subdivision (circa 1890s) were all held under common ownership and deeded together to subsequent owners over the years in a single deed. As I recall, the courts concluded there were no separate legal lots. I am on the road so I don't have my references handy to quote court case and SMA specifics. Sorry to disappoint you Good!!

[Lehmann]

I have to disagree with goodgps, I think it depends, may be legal maybe not. Recordation alone didn't always do it back then. Subsequent sales of individual lots to various different individuals certainly would make those particular parcels legal. Review the Cal Surveyor a few issues back, Mike Durkee wrote several very good articles re: this very issue.

[JasonCamit]

Could not find the back issue related to legal lots on old plats. I have also researched the SMA and found general information, but nothing specific to this situation. Still looking.

[subman]

http://www.allenmatkins.com/emails/LeAl ... 82708.html


http://www.californiasurveyors.org/cals ... urv160.pdf (see page 42)

[JasonCamit]

Thanks. I will look into these leads.

[mpallamary]

As the underlying rule under the recent rash of court decisions relating to the notion of "legal" lots has oft stated, the principle catalyst for legality is generally the conveyance. The mere fact that a lot is shown on a recorded map is not evidence of legality. The conveyance creates that standing, not the map. In simplest terms, the courts have concluded that most of the older maps are nothing more than cartoons. Needless to say, I do not agree with these opinions. As Dickens wrote, "The law is a ass."

[JasonCamit]

It appears that this is an issue that is still outstanding. I have read the two articles that appear to have two different conclusions. The details of my situation are as such:

Plat recorded properly in 1909.

(8) 25'x150' contigious lots that have been conveyed a few times. They have also been developed with (2) different structures and a parking lot.

They are located in a downtown commercial area with very little zoning restrictions, except distances between structures on one parcel.

All lots are on one Assessors Parcel Number and owned by a single owner today.

As I understand it, the owner would like to sale the lots that are occupied by one of the structures.

The surrounding lots are also developed and have been conveyed several times, as well.

Are these lots legal to be sold individually or in a contigious group, assuming that they conform to the current zoning?

Is a Certificate of Compiance necessary to make these lots legal, if not?

[mpallamary]

Were they every sold as separate parcels and NOT as two consolidated parcels in one deed? They have to have been sold seperately to two different parties to constitute a "subdivision."

Were permits for anything issued to two seperate owners? If so, it is a slam dunk as the agency has to rcognize the legal lots.

When in doubt, always seek a Certificate of Compliance.

As to any articles, with all dues respect, they are probably interpretations of one's perception. If possible, read the applicable case law. The law could have changed this morning.

Good luck.

[GWinglovitz]

I have a similar project that consists of five lots from a 1894 map. The city wants a PM done to merge the parcels. If I can present a continuous chain of title back to before 1972, showing all the lots were sold together and were never split up, would this be sufficient to prove that the lots should be treated as one legal lot, or do I need a complete chain back to the creating map? Further more I have copies of the building permit for the stucture that spans 4 of the lots.

[Ian Wilson]

The building permit merged the lots.

The city is at error and should not require your client to fix their mistake.

Ministreial function at best.

Review SMA §66451.301 et seq.

[GWinglovitz]

Ian

It turns out that the permits I have are for additions to the main building and not for the building itself. The permits do establish that the building was in existence in the late 1960's. Do you think that these permits with a chain of title back to before 1972 showing all lots under the same ownership would be enough to force the city to approve a certificate of compliance approving that all 5 lots are actually one legal lot?

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

What I want to know is...

when are the Courts going to figure out the illegal subdivision that happened 37 years ago (1973) may have been illegal but that was 37 years ago and it can't be undone readily? Perhaps the two neighbors will find out they are suddenly 1/2 undivided interest partners. Most things have a Statute of Limitations except for murder and the absolute horror of illegal subdivisions LOL.

[Ian Wilson]

Curt Brown used to say that Boundary Surveying is not "life or death"...it's far more serious. Just sayin', Dude!

[T. S. Higgins]

My wife (An RN) and I have noticed how her patients tend to accept the death of a loved one far more readily than the "loss" of a few feet on their sideline when they're told the fence isn't really the property line.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

We are terrotorial animals, this is at the heart of this. Humans are very sensitive about their terrotory.

Land Surveying is really a branch of Anthropology. Our boundary law grows out of our culture.