Lot side lines extended through dedicated road?

[Paul Goebel]

I’ve been having a discussion with an agency about road dedications and new lot lines. In a scenario were a strip of additional roadway is being dedicated on a final map should the new lot side lines terminate at the dedication, or extend through it to the existing right-of-way line?

Most of the maps in the Counties that I work frequently in have the lot lines “trimmed” at the new dedication. However, in the future event that reversionary rights were to be established, having the lot lines extended to the fee title line would remove all doubt regarding the location of each lot’s portion of the reversion.

In some instances, the bold exterior line of the map may be located on the road center line, in which case the lot lines could be extended to the center line.

Does anyone have a well-informed opinion on this?

[dedkad]

I like to see the bold exterior line encompass the road dedication, so it is clear that the subject property has the rights to dedicate the easement. Typically, I see the lot lines trimmed at the dedication line, which I think makes the map look cleaner and the offer look clearer. Most of the time this wouldn't be an issue because it would be pretty clear who owns what frontage if the street is ever abandoned, but if you are on a cul-de-sac or some other strange alignment, showing the lot lines through the dedication might not be a bad idea.

[Ian Wilson]

On my phone...Civil Code 831. PL runs to CL of street unless street granted in fee...NOT just dedicated. Show as trimmed, but understand lines continue.

See City of San Diego for "Disposition Sheet" on sub maps to preordain where lines run on vacation. Greg Hopkins work..."You da Man!"

[Warren Smith]

In cases like this, it is a good idea to show the subdivider's intent. With tiered lots like this, it's fairly obvious, but removing ambiguity would be beneficial.

My preference would be to show dashed lines across the dedication and intermediate curve data. It can become cluttered, but that's what Curve Tables are for. It may not be an issue here, but Planners tend to use gross lot area for some purposes, and this could be useful.

[Paul Goebel]

It looks to me like the City of San Diego makes showing reversion lines optional, according to their mapping manual. See the quote below:

"In certain areas of the city it may make sense to show the reversionary rights within the heavy border of the map. If the land surveyor wants to show the reversionary interest on their map, they may do so. If they choose to do this they must include the streets within their legal description on the map, as an item within the title report in Schedule B and shown in the legal description within the title report. The land surveyor must also include the reversionary note as shown above."

I agree that the City of San Diego has an excellent mapping manual.