LLA or Parcel Map

[TIB]

My client owns 4 cont. 25 x 100 lots in City of National City. All 4 lots are one APN. There is one house on lot. Client wants to split lot in two parts, keeping house and having extra lot to sell later, no development or new building on extra lot proposed. Since there are 4 orig. lots. no new lots are created, actually less, 4 orig, 2 proposed.
Can this be done with a LLA, or Tent./Parcel Map?
How does a merger fit in the equation
Why?
Thanks
TIB

[Ben Lund]

LLA. And why merge the lots?

[BoundaryMan]

As long as the resultant number of parcels is less than the existing number of parcels, you may use LLA to accomplish your task. Parcel map process is too costly & time consuming.

[MikeTurnrose]

What Woodcutter said and are the lots shown on a recorded subdivision map?

[Ian Wilson]

Since, as TIB posted originally, these are 25’ x 100’ foot lots in National City, I’m willing to bet that the subdivision was mapped in the first half of the last century (1901-1951) and that the lots have changed hands many times. Further, most, if not all, of the lots created by the subdivision map have been conveyed by the subdivider to others.

The Lot Line Adjustment process is the appropriate one to handle the task at hand for your client, TIB. Of course, with more than 500 jurisdictions in California, there are nearly as many ways to perform the task.

Great question, TIB!


Answers to some of the other questions in the thread…

What year were the 4 lots created?
. First half of the 1900’s, probably…

Were they created by a map or deed or otherwise?
. More than likely given that all four lots are 25’ x 100’ and this is National City, they were created by map.

Were there any local ordinances governing subdivisions in effect at that time?
. Not in National City

Have they ever been held under separate ownership?
. Not significant in city blocks. The take away from Sonoma is that the ENTIRE (or nearly entire) chunk of land originally subdivided was never TREATED as a collection of subdivided parcels. In other words, if it looks like one parcel and has been treated as one parcel and has been conveyed as one parcel, it probably won’t be considered many parcels.

Is there a local ordinance regarding owner initiated merger?
. Who cares? The client wants to move lines around, not merge parcels.

(A)re the lots shown on a recorded subdivision map?
. Undoubtedly. Whether the parcels were created by subdivision map or by deed doesn’t matter under SMA §66412(d). Of course, if the EXTERIOR boundaries of the lots were never shown on a recorded map, the surveyor would be on the hook for filing a Record of Survey under §8762(b)(4), if they performed a field survey to assure the local jurisdiction that the existing house met setback requirements for the new lot lines, even if no monuments were set.

[charlie8297]

If you can verify that the each lot is a legal, separate lot, then you can do a LLA. A lot of times, if one owner owns adjoining parcels, they can to the Assessor's Office and have everything "merged" into one parcel number so they only get on Tax bill. It is not a legal lot merger, just done for tax purposes.

[land butcher]

Of course, with more than 500 jurisdictions in California, there are nearly as many ways to perform the task.

Sad but true

[BoundaryMan]

In Gardner v Sonoma the case was about 12 of the original 90 lots.
In Abernathy v Sonoma the case was about 1 of the original 25 lots.

Although in Witt v Sonoma, the case was about the entire subdivision, I have not seen where it or any of these 3 recent cases that the determination was based on "the entire (or nearly entire) chunk of land originally subdivided..."

Interesting point of debate, but I think both Gardner and Abernathy show that if a remaining portion, regardless of its size in relation to the original subdivision, remains intact under continuous ownership (transferred or not), then its legal status is in question if it was subdivided prior to 1929 and no local oridinance governing subdivisions was in effect.

I.e., the entire subdivision is not grandfathered simply because some significant number of lots have passed into separate ownership.

But, have these particular lots been continuously conveyed together?

Woodcutter, what are your concerns here? If it’s, can those 2 legal parcels be conveyed separately later even though they have been continuously conveyed together? I ask this because my house is sitting on legal lot line between 2 legal parcels. One day, I like to demo the old house and build 2 new houses. Do you see a problem? Thanks.

[subman]

How is the existing house oriented? Will it meet or exceed the minimum side yard setback required under the local zoning ordinance if it needs to stand on its own when the other two lots are separated from ownership?

[subman]

Another approach may be to ask the local planning agency if you can record a document that ties two lots together and prohibits them from being sold separately. This is done in LA County. Then ask if they will issue a single Certificate of Compliance for the two lots tied together. If they are agreeable, this may be an inexpensive way of creating the two marketable parcels.

I recall an old subdivision in the Chatsworth area where COCs were issued for multiple 25' x100' lots in order to meet all of the present day code requirements to build a single home (setbacks, septic etc.)

[TIB]

Legal Desc is Lots 17-20 Block XX Map XXX. Map recorded in 1897. The existing house looks like it's 60 or more years old of continuous ownership. The existing house is on the east side. Client wishes to keep the east half (of lots 17-20) with the house, and sell the vacant west half. Client proposes to demolish a small portion of existing house so it will have minimum side yard setback from proposed new line, and then both proposed lots meet zoning standards. LLA proposes new lines that takes and gives equal amounts to each lot and does not create a greater number of lots (4). Are they 4 separate and legal lots even though they have always been together under one owner?
Since the 4 lots have not been recorded as merged by ciy, they are unmerged (same as seperate) per SMA 66451.10 (a & b)
Legal? Doesn't being lots on a recorded Sub'd. Map make them legal lots?
I never heard of Gardener Vs Sonoma. Can it make a once legal lot illegal today? Can someone enlighten me what it means in this situation.
I'm thinking LLA but City says PM. The Planner said LLA go see Engineering Dept., then Engineering said I'm creating a new lot so I need to go to Planning to apply for PM. I don't want to argue with them unless I can back it up somewhat. Thanks for your help and input

[Ian Wilson]

TIB private message sent