Must all subdivision lots be monumented? Must any?

[paulhmabry]

I have an interesting situation where the City of Alameda is transferring a strip of land fronting homeowners on the Oakland tidal canal and using a final map to create lots that will be used in the conveyance.
I suspect that few or perhaps even none of the new lot corners will be monumented.

Per the Map Act Sec. 66495, "At the time of making of survey for the final map... the engineer or surveyor shall set sufficient durable monuments to conform with the standards described in Section 8771 of the Business and Professions Code so that another engineer or surveyor may readily retrace the survey."

So my question:
How many monuments must be set to "readily retrace" a new lot?
Must every new lot be "surveyed" or could the exterior boundary only be surveyed (thereby avoiding the need to monument each lot)?

I have my own opinions, but I'd like to hear what others think.

[Warren Smith]

A readily retraceable survey would be that of the boundary. Deferred setting of interior monuments would be covered by a subdivision agreement with a performance bond, pursuant to local ordinance for development.

[paulhmabry]

Responding to Warren Smith:
Assume it is not an issue of deferral. What interior monuments must be set (deferred or not)?

[David Kendall]

I would try to get away with setting three or four "extremely durable" monuments (consider centerline monuments in mon wells that are intervisible and not easily subject to ground movement or accidental destruction) and reference all other lot lines to them. I'm imagining a waterfront where one could see a long ways and easily stake any of these lines from a few well placed control points as needed. That's "readily retraceable" in my book...

[Warren Smith]

Paul,

The requirement to monument each new lot of a subdivision will be contained within the local agency's Development Code, along with other mapping requirements. The setting of interior monuments prior to construction activity can be an exercise in futility.

SMA section 66496 states:

"Interior monuments need not be set at the time the map is recorded, if the engineer or surveyor certifies on the map that the monuments will be set on or before a specified later date, and if the subdivider furnishes to the legislative body security guaranteeing the payment of the cost of setting such monuments."

PLSA section 8771(a) speaks to the setting of sufficient monuments to ensure the perpetuation or facile reestablishment of any point or line of the survey. That is, after all, how the deferred interior monuments are set after improvements are completed.

[JoeC]

Why not set all the monuments? A private developer would be required to. Why would the City of Alameda be any different? The requirements should be the same not only for monumentation but for the conditions of approval. This should go to the Planning Commission and City Council. Sorry, a little off topic but wanted to bring it up.

[paulhmabry]

Thank you David Kendall. Your answer is the most in line with what I was requesting.
JoeC: I agree with you - setting all the monuments would be ideal. But assuming for whatever reason (cost, ignorance, etc), the City did not intend to set any monuments. I feel that would be a violation of the Map Act. However, in our professional opinions, is there some consensus as to how much monumentation is required?

(If we the professional community have no consensus on this, then I can't very well expect the lay public to understand or agree either...)

Thanks all for your contributions!

[William Magee]

Being that government agencies are typically (but not always) exempt from having to file a subdivision map when conveying portions of parcels, getting a map filed based on an actual survey is going to be far better than all too many government sales and acquisitions of portions of parcels.
So great that they are actually going to prepare and record a map.
As far as number and location of monuments, this is a subjective arena. I've seen 100 + lot subdivisions in very recent history, where all that was monumented were the street centerline monuments. Certainly meets the letter of the law of having a sufficient # of durable monuments available for retracement. The question arises as to how those un-monumented portions are later field identified. In the case of the 100 + lot subdivisions there is a strong likelihood that the individual lot PL's were simply "construction staked" when the fences were built.
In your situation I think the letter of the law is achieved as long as the filed map is retraceable on the ground and the individual un-monumented lot lines are not simply "construction staked" in the field.

[subman]

Not subjective or vague in my opinion.

City ordinance does not require each lot corner to be monumented (copy below). In this case it would be exterior boundary monuments at angle points and any street centerline geometry contol points (BC, EC, intersections, etc.). You mention the "City", but in reality, it is the Surveyor signing the map that is responsible for complying with state law and local ordinance with respect to the survey requirements. The City would be the Subdivider if processing a tract or parcel map. They have an option to prepare an Official Map (Division 3) of the SMA.

30-81.3 - Monuments.
a.Whenever the City Engineer has established the monument line of a street or alley, adjacent to or in the proposed division of land, such date shall be shown on the final map or parcel map, indicating all monuments found and reference to a map. If the points were reset by tires, the fact shall be stated.

b.The map shall show the location and description of all monuments found in making the survey for the subdivision map or parcel map, and shall include bearings and distances of straight lines and radii and arc length for all curves, and such information as may be necessary to determine the location of the centers of curves and ties to existing monuments used to establish the subdivision boundaries.

c.Monuments shall be installed at street intersections, between street intersection, where necessary to preserve the street alignment and the angle points along the exterior boundaries where necessary.

(Ord. No. 1728 N.S.; Ord. No. 1783 N.S.)

[paulhmabry]

So let me recap what I think I understand from everyone's input:
1) The Surveyor is the responsible party even though the City may be the "Subdivider". (I agree, thanks subman).
2) Gov't agencies may be exempt from filing a Final Map. (I agree, thanks William Magee. Here, City has chosen the Final Map route but even so, policies of Map Act still apply to exempt conveyances - similarly, City might be able to prepare an official map...)
3) City Code specifies some monumentation (street mons, exterior boundary monuments), but is silent on requirement for interior lot corners.

subman feels this municipal code is sufficient to meet the Map Act requirements. I'm not sure I agree. Consider these additional facts:
There are no immediately adjacent streets to this subdivision (bounded by tidal canal on one side and lots of a very old (circa 1912) subdivision on the other).
The closest streets do not appear to have been originally monumented per the 1912 plat and it's unclear if the City has ever established the right of way alignment subsequently.
The tidal canal was laid out in the 1870s for the Corps of Engineers, but of the half dozen or so angle points of record, I have seen no records indicating any original monumentation set or found subsequently.
In other words, any existing monumentation will be sparse and not immediately adjacent to the new subdivision.

Conclusion then (if I correctly understand subman) is that if per City Code, new monuments were installed at the nearest street intersections and between intersections as necessary to preserve alignment and at angles points on the exterior boundary, such would be adequate to meet state law.

I'm not sure I agree, but I think it is a rational argument.
Thanks for the input William Magee and subman. I look forward to hearing any other input.

To add to the discussion, I posed this question at the CLSA chapter meeting last night. Some folks there felt the every lot corner should be set, others (more in line with City Code) felt that monument pairs should be set along adjacent streets and at all the angle points on the boundary...

[Peter Ehlert]

Mike, I think there are no problems with the method that the City chose.

the true bottom line in my eye:
If the new owners of those new lots have unambiguous title, and can have them surveyed and marked out (owner option), then no problem.

[Anthony Maffia]

Well, I'm late to this discussion... Here's my 7.5 cents worth.

The City of Alameda, as a governmental agency, is exempt from the Subdivision Map Act, and possibly from their own subdivision ordinances. However if their map cannot be retraced using data shown thereon, then that would violate other statutes.

I'd hope that their map at minimum ties to existing monuments which would be used to retrace the existing homeowners's lots. Corner monuments in a tidal canal don't sound as if they'd be stable or reliable though.

[land butcher]

Not sure about now but not that may years ago the County of LA didn't not require lot corners, just sufficient mons to establish the lot corner such as the tract corners. I ran into that some years ago when a guy with a top of the hill lot need his pl to set his house on it and per the tract map only the tract corners were set.

[Wanderthewest]

SMA 66428

.............................a parcel map shall not be required for either of the following:

(2) Land conveyed to or from a governmental agency, public entity, public utility, or for land conveyed to a subsidiary of a public utility for conveyance to that public utility for rights-of-way, unless a showing is made in individual cases, upon substantial evidence, that public policy necessitates a parcel map. For purposes of this subdivision, land conveyed to or from a governmental agency shall include a fee interest, a leasehold interest, an easement, or a license.

I see Parcel map as possibly exempt, I'm not seeing a Final Map as exempt

Governmental agencies do not have carte blanche

[subman]

Paul

If I can elaborate. The surveyor preparing this final map must set new monuments on the exterior boundary of this strip if no monuments exist (c). If a pure rectangle, that would mean four. If the strip has angle points in the exterior boundary; then an additional monument for each angle point (c). In addition, this exterior boundary needs to be sufficiently tied to existing monuments (b) in a manner that meets the local standard of care and PLS Act.

If this is done and the interior lot lines are clearly shown with B&D that tie to these new boundary monuments, then I believe a subsequent surveyor via a Corner Record filing can locate and monument a new individual lot within the new tract map once recorded.

A related question. What are the size of these lots? Will they be in conformence with the City General Plan and zoning? Will they be developable or will the new owner need to do a lot merger to combine the existing abutting lot and the new lot conveyed to them by the city? Most local subdivision ordinances require newly created lots to have street frontage or an existing means of legal physical access.

Buyer beware...

[Warren Smith]

Paul,

It sounds as if the final map will have lots which are extensions of the adjacent lots. Existing rear corners would now be on-line witnesses by the distances shown on the new map.

What were conditions of approval for the tentative map? It doesn't sound as if development of the newly created lots were a consideration.

[paulhmabry]

Thanks Warren Smith and subman.
Responding to Warren Smith first:
Generally you are correct - these are intended to be extensions to the adjacent lots (that is what stated for the public record). However, looking closely at the tentative map, there are many of the new lots that are not extensions of the old lots. It appears the "extensions" were arbitrarily drawn to fit existing homeowner improvements and so there is quite a range of variation in the old versus new lot lines. (or maybe the old lot lines were drawn arbitrarily)
If the new lots were extensions of old lot lines, then I absolutely agree with you. Furthermore, the old lot lines belong to a 1912 subdivision that contains little or no monumentation. And to answer your question, there are no conditions of approval that relate to surveying.

And to subman:
Thanks for your input. This is a long strip of land (1 mile) in a sort of hockey stick shape (400' wide). There would be about 4 exterior corners on uplands and the other side is in the canal itself. (So very few accessible corners to even set exterior monumentation) The new lots average about 40' wide and extend out into the water 100' or so. I'd guess the lots on average have maybe 10' of dry land before entering the water (mine has about 30' of depth, but many begin almost right at the water's edge). The lots are in conformance with a special zoning class that only allows building of docks, wharfs, etc.
Basically, with no lot corners set, the survey lot lines will be anything but "easily reestablished" per Sec. 8771.

Here's a link the TMap if any of you would like to see it.
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aje3-Heq4WatgsUXN4YE00j9_GZ-3g

[Warren Smith]

Paul,

I can see where many proposed lot corners fall in water, beyond the docks. As a practical matter, if sufficient existing monuments are in place for the landward portion of adjacent lots, determining locations of rear corners is going to be per dimensions shown on the map for site plan or other future permitting purposes. Beachfront lots face the same situation - offset witness monuments.

The occasional bend from property line extensions to accommodate improvements (which appear to have been prior permitted construction) would be appropriate.

[dedkad]

SMA 66428

.............................a parcel map shall not be required for either of the following:

(2) Land conveyed to or from a governmental agency, public entity, public utility, or for land conveyed to a subsidiary of a public utility for conveyance to that public utility for rights-of-way, unless a showing is made in individual cases, upon substantial evidence, that public policy necessitates a parcel map. For purposes of this subdivision, land conveyed to or from a governmental agency shall include a fee interest, a leasehold interest, an easement, or a license.

I see Parcel map as possibly exempt, I'm not seeing a Final Map as exempt

Governmental agencies do not have carte blanche

66426.5.
Any conveyance of land to or from a governmental agency, public entity, public utility, or subsidiary of a public utility for conveyance to that public utility for rights-of-way shall not be considered a division of land for purposes of computing the number of parcels. For purposes of this section, any conveyance of land to or from a governmental agency shall include a fee interest, a leasehold interest, an easement, or a license.

Zero parcels = no map

[dedkad]

Will they be developable or will the new owner need to do a lot merger to combine the existing abutting lot and the new lot conveyed to them by the city? Most local subdivision ordinances require newly created lots to have street frontage or an existing means of legal physical access.

Buyer beware...

I was wondering this myself.

[paulhmabry]

Responding to dedkad:
The City has opined that there will not be a requirement that the new lots be merged. Such a merger would be at the discretion of the future owner. The zoning on the lots precludes any habitable dwellings being constructed in the future. I suppose it is arguable that legal access is met because the water frontage is a navigable water body. In any case, the lots are of no practical use to anyone but the abutting homeowners...

[Warren Smith]

Paul,

Could dock easements not have been granted? Typical marina development works in that fashion for improvements on the water side of the seawalls.

[Anthony Maffia]

The assessor can tax the homeowners this way.