COC QUIZ QUESTION

[mpallamary]

There has been some discussion on Certificates of Compliance both on and off the forum. I have recently had this topic come up a couple of times. I have developed a question I would like to submit for discussion.

On the attached sketch, we have a parcel of land surrounded by legal parcels. All of these parcels were issued Certificates of Compliance. The center parcel was not issued a Certificate. Is it legal? If not, why not? If not, how would you cure this situation?

Any added thoughts would be appreciated. As an aside, the California Supreme Court stated under the following case:

****************************************************************************************************************************************

NATHAN KEIZER et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. LEONARD ADAMS, as Supervising Building Inspector, etc., et al., Defendants and Appellants
S.F. No. 22716 - Supreme Court of California
2 Cal. 3d 976; 471 P.2d 983; 88 Cal. Rptr. 183; 1970 Cal. LEXIS 321
July 30, 1970

[The suggestion that the only remedies of plaintiff-purchasers are to either join with other purchasers of lots in the illegal subdivision and obtain approval by the county of a subdivision map, or else to exercise their statutory right to void their purchase ( § 11540, Bus. & Prof. Code) is untenable. No procedure is suggested, and we are aware of none, by which plaintiffs could compel the other purchasers to join in seeking to correct the illegal acts of their predecessors in interest. (See Munns v. Stenman, supra, 152 Cal.App.2d 543, 552.) With respect to the right to void the transaction, section 11540 specifies in pertinent part that a deed made contrary to the act is voidable at grantee's option "within one year after the date of execution of the deed," and, further, that the deed of conveyance "is binding upon any assignee or transferee of the grantee." Thus, if a purchaser of a lot from an illegal subdivider did not seek a building permit within one year after his purchase he might well not discover within that time that facts existed giving him the right to void the purchase, and, additionally, in case he resold the lot the second purchaser is by the ex-press terms of the statute denied any voiding rights what-ever.]

[Warren Smith]

If each of the surrounding parcels were found to be in compliance, it seems that this unaddressed parcel would, by default, be in compliance.

Presumably, each of the compliant parcels were created lawfully, so this would be deemed a residual, or remainder, parcel.

What remains to be determined is if it is develop-able under current zoning requirements. If not, it may be combined in some fashion with one or more of its adjoiners.

[mpallamary]

Yes, makes sense. As you know, there is no guarantee of development rights with a COC. In many instances, folks pursue a COC for hypothecation so they can propose something. Most lenders are leery about committing any financing on an SMA-non compliant parcel.

Thanks!

[mpallamary]

Warren. Do you agree with my statement that lines define lots?

[Warren Smith]

Michael,

More like lines define lots. In cases like these, the bounds are what define the remnant from the parent parcel.

[mpallamary]

Yes, thanks.

[mpallamary]

The County of San Diego has a policy regarding this situation. See attached.