Subdivision of common area of condominium - PM or FM

[Elias French]

Hello All,

Any insight into the following question would be greatly appreciated. The PIQ is a rather long property currently mapped as a "One Lot Subdivision for 10 condominium units" The 10-unit condominium building lies at one end of the property, and the rest of the property is essentially vacant land, or "Common Area" per the condominium diagrams. The objective is to subdivide the property, putting a new property line through the Common Area, creating one new parcel of vacant land, and leaving the 10-Unit condominium in place on the other parcel. Obviously, the Condominium Diagrams, etc. would have to be updated to reflect the new property configuration. The question is, would this map take the form of a Parcel Map (two lot subdivision, 10 condominium units to remain...), or must it be a Final Map (Merger and re-subdivision of exising parcel with 10 Condominium Units...)? I welcome any input or experience on this situation.

[Warren Smith]

I think that the distinction between a parcel map and a final map for the creation of five or more condominiums contained in SMA section 66426 would not apply for the creation of an additional parcel from the parent parcel.

All the other aspects would need to be addressed in the tentative map, such as access to the new parcel, the amendment of, or revision to, the diagrammatics and CC&Rs, and any other concerns relating to the proposed new parcel.

In other words, a parcel map should suffice - with the caption as you propose. I presume that the resultant Common Area would be sufficient for the existing condominiums.

In any event, the Owner's Statement would be signed by the authorized representatives of the HOA pursuant to a Resolution.

[Ian Wilson]

Interesting question. There’s a lot going on in that question, too.

First: Is this residential or commercial?

Second: Was the original map a Final Map or a Parcel Map?

Third: Is the original subdivider taking another “bite of the apple” or is the current owner different from the subdivider?

Fourth: How many common unit subdivisions are there in the area?

If the project is commercial, then, you can push for a Parcel Map under §66426(c). Many people forget that a subdivision for commercial purposes falls under a different scrutiny than the same subdivision for residential purposes.

If the original map was a Parcel Map, adding another lot probably won’t trigger a requirement for filing a Final Map.

If the first map was a Final Map, you may be able to make the argument that you are only subdividing one lot, the common area, into two parcels. The Condo units are left out of the equation.

If the owner is not the subdivider, the parcel count for subdivision purposes gets reset back to zero. If the owner is the same, it depends on how the local jurisdiction views the new split. The count may be tacked on, making it a case of 11 units being subdivided into 12 unit.

The reason for the fourth question is to judge the sophistication and experience level of the jurisdiction. Do they have a lot of experience with Davis-Sterling or are they going to be trying to figure things out as they go. This is not an indictment of anyone, it’s just an analysis of how much learning there is going to be on both sides, jurisdiction and subdivider.

As far as the Condo Diagrams being revisited, they may not need to be. Nothing will change regarding the units. The answer will lie in the way the Diagrams were put together, originally. Was a proportional ownership in the common area included or is the common area owned by an HOA?

There is a lot going on in this scenario and there are a lot of details that are missing. The devil – and your answer – lies in those details.

Man, I would LOVE to know more about this case. It sounds like a really fun project.

Happy Holidays, everyone!

[dedkad]

Couldn't you jut omit the portion of the property that the condos are on pursuant to Sec. 66424.6 of the SMA? Then it could be a one-lot parcel map and you're not touching the condo parcel so there is no question of merging and resubdividing the condo portion. The only problem I see with omitting the condo portion would be if there are some shared easements that you need to create as a result of this subdivision. It is usually easier to create easements on the map, but easements by separate doc aren't necessarily a deal-killer.

If you went the omit route and I were the agency, I would require you to prepare a legal description for the omitted portion and record a Certificate of Compliance on that portion as soon as the map is recorded.