ROS for LLA?

[TIB]

City agency wants a Record of Survey filed as a condition of approval for Lot Line adjustment. SMA 16.23.01 says ROS not required for LLA. When I asked City about this, they said the requirement is that monuments be set on new line, which of course triggers ROS.
Is this OK?

TIB

[kwilson]

I am not sure about your question but I will never do a lot line adjustment without setting monuments or in some way making sure the exact location of the new line is clearly defined in the field. Don’t we want to set monuments and do actual boundary surveys as opposed to doing things using record data only? Same thing with the “record data” parcel map. Subdividing land without doing a physical survey caused many problems for landowners and surveyors. I don’t know if the SMA still allows that. Hopefully not.

[Ric7308]

TIB, City does not have the authority to require a Record of Survey as a condition of the LLA process. However, the City does have the authority to impose conditions on the property owners which could in turn require the services of a land surveyor and those services may trigger the mandatory requiring of a either a Record of Survey or a Corner Record pursuant to the PLS Act.

City requiring the setting of monuments to mark the new line is the most typical of those conditions. It is up to the land surveyor to determine whether a Corner Record or Record of Survey is required, and generally it is a Record of Survey in this case.

However....the City has absolutely no legal authority to review that Record of Survey, regardless of what they or their ordinances state. they only have the authority to ensure that monuments were set in accordance with their conditions.

If you have any issues with this situation, email me or Dallas Sweeney and we'll help communicate this to the City.

[DWoolley]

...
However....the City has absolutely no legal authority to review that Record of Survey, regardless of what they or their ordinances state. they only have the authority to ensure that monuments were set in accordance with their conditions.

If you have any issues with this situation, email me or Dallas Sweeney and we'll help communicate this to the City.

The statement shown above is partially correct. I offer a clarification, the [insert public agency name here] can contractually obligate a land surveyor to submit a record of survey for review and comments from the public agency prior to filing the record of survey at the county for review. Is BPELSG staff willing to offer advice on the professional breaching her contractual obligations? Rhetorical question. I am contractually obligated or create contractual obligations to review/submit records of survey and corner records outside of the county review. Don't get yourself into contractual trouble by stonewalling an agency based on the limitations of the Professional Land Surveyors' Act (BPELSG wheelhouse).

In the jurisdictions I work in or function as a City Surveyor the city requirement for a "site plan" usually triggers the record of survey. The site plan requires a tie from the new/proposed line to the existing physical features i.e. buildings, driveways, etc. the ties are used to verify there are no negative impacts and/or setback encroachments etc. The ties "establish" the lines "not shown on a previous subdivision map, official map or record of survey" and triggers the record of survey. Besides the triggered legal obligation to file, the timing is important to the city surveyor - responsible for the lot line adjustment - in that a lot line adjustment is only a permission to adjust the line - not the actual adjustment of the line. The conveyance of title documents and modified deeds of trust are required before the line is actually realized. Technically, the record of survey should not file until the lot line adjustment is finalized.

The other scenario in which [insert public agency name here] requires the submittal of a corner record or record of survey is as a condition of a demo permit before allowing a contractor to begin their work. The agency wants the record with a proof it has been submitted to the county as method of monument preservation (Bus.&Prof. 8771). Not exactly part of the discussion, information only.

DWoolley

[Ric7308]

I appreciate you bringing additional information to the discussion Dave. But respectively, the City has no legal authority to "review" a Record of Survey. There just is no law in California that supports that. The Board is willing to advise the land surveyor and the City, including any legal counsel at the City, on the process for filing a Record of Survey.

[steffan]

Excerpt from 66412(d) of the CA Gov't Code (SMA):

"A local agency or advisory agency shall limit its review and approval to a determination of whether or not the parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment will conform to the local general plan, any applicable specific plan, any applicable coastal plan, and zoning and building ordinances. An advisory agency or local agency shall not impose conditions or exactions on its approval of a lot line adjustment except to conform to the local general plan, any applicable specific plan, any applicable coastal plan, and zoning and building ordinances, to require the prepayment of real property taxes prior to the approval of the lot line adjustment, or to facilitate the relocation of existing utilities, infrastructure, or easements."

Ask the city where they found their condition for setting monument within their general plan, specific plan, coastal plan, or zoning or building ordinances. Ask that the city get their city attorney's opinion on this. It is my opinion that setting of monuments for a LLA would normally not have a causal relationship with the aforementioned plans or ordinances, and that the city's attempt at requiring setting of monuments is a blatant attempt to circumvent both the aforementioned general limitations and even more specifically, the clear and irrefutable limitation against requiring a ROS.

[LS_8750]

I'll play.

In the case of construction documents, how does the public agency know the site plan submitted is "drawn in accordance with an accurate boundary survey" per 2019 CBC, Chapter 1, Division 1, Section 107.2.5?

Seems to me the Building Official has some authority here.

For planning documents, most public jurisdictions I've worked in have site plan requirements, and those requirements typically include features relative to property lines.

Seems to me the Planning Director has some authority here.

What if the Building Official or Planning Director requests verification that the site plan requirements have been met?

Might they have a back door into 8762?

[Warren Smith]

Some jurisdictions provide an option to file an unconditioned parcel map for lot line adjustments - notably the City of San Diego and Tuolumne County. This obviates the need for filing a record of survey for the new monuments set, and is a means of showing the adjusted parcels and access easements, if necessary, on one document for reference when transferring title. Typically, the review fee is substantially less than a parcel map, and more in line with what a record of survey cost would be.

[steffan]

I have turned down clients who wanted a LLA but did not want the corners marked. However that was for specific situations where I would need to make some location determinations.
However, I agree that there are a number of situations where a LLA can be performed and there is no need to monument the new line location and there is no benefit to the public for a ROS. These situations are why the LLA condition limitations exist and why the AG opined on the matter.
For construction documents, the ability of the building department to require proof of boundary location is warranted and I encourage that. However, the building permit process and requirements is a separate subject from LLA approval process.

As a for instance, I once surveyed for a client who felt his neighbor just built a garage over the line. The line was still monumented with the original monuments and per record, and the building did prove to be over the boundary by a foot or so. I prepared an exhibit showing those relationships, and after the attorney used that to convince the offending party that he needed to pay for the encroachment and a LLA, the LLA was executed. There was no need for new monuments, as the original monuments and building location clearly provided field location. A ROS would be of no benefit to anyone.

I can think of a multitude of situations where neither new monuments nor a ROS would be necessary or beneficial.

[DWoolley]

[quote="steffan"]Excerpt from 66412(d) of the CA Gov't Code (SMA):

"A local agency or advisory agency shall limit its review and approval to a determination of whether or not the parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment will conform to the local general plan, any applicable specific plan, any applicable coastal plan, and zoning and building ordinances. An advisory agency or local agency shall not impose conditions or exactions on its approval of a lot line adjustment except to conform to the local general plan, any applicable specific plan, any applicable coastal plan, and zoning and building ordinances, to require the prepayment of real property taxes prior to the approval of the lot line adjustment, or to facilitate the relocation of existing utilities, infrastructure, or easements."

Steffan:

I think you inadvertently overlooked the section shown below:

66412
...

"(d) A lot line adjustment between four or fewer existing adjoining parcels, where the land taken from one parcel is added to an adjoining parcel, and where a greater number of parcels than originally existed is not thereby created, if the lot line adjustment is approved by the local agency, or advisory agency. A local agency or advisory agency shall limit its review and approval to a determination of whether or not the parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment will conform to the local general plan, any applicable specific plan, any applicable coastal plan, and zoning and building ordinances. An advisory agency or local agency shall not impose conditions or exactions on its approval of a lot line adjustment except to conform to the local general plan, any applicable specific plan, any applicable coastal plan, and zoning and building ordinances, to require the prepayment of real property taxes prior to the approval of the lot line adjustment, or to facilitate the relocation of existing utilities, infrastructure, or easements. No tentative map, parcel map, or final map shall be required as a condition to the approval of a lot line adjustment. The lot line adjustment shall be reflected in a deed, which shall be recorded. No record of survey shall be required for a lot line adjustment unless required by Section 8762 of the Business and Professions Code. A local agency shall approve or disapprove a lot line adjustment pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act (Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 65920) of Division 1)." [Emphasis mine].

The site plan, with ties from the buildings to the new lines, triggers Section 8762 of the Business and Professions Code.

DWoolley

[steffan]

No, I didn't.

The example presented before with the exist line, with original monuments still present, tied to the encroaching garage results in a site plan that does not trigger a ROS.

[TIB]

Ric says City can impose conditions and setting monuments on new line is typical.
SMA sez city shall NOT IMPOSE CONDITIONS OR EXACTIONS ON ITS APPROVAL.....
mONUMENTS ARE NOT PART OF GENERAL, SPECIFIC plan etc
That seems to be pretty clear that city can't require mons be set or ROS
I agree with steffan . But Ric and Woolley are waaay smarter than me.
"SHALL NOT IMPOSE CONDITIONS" is clear to me that mons not required.
Am I missing something?

[LA Stevens]

If you are required to submit a site plan showing existing improvements to the proposed boundary line, it is approved by the agency and the property owners execute a deed creating a new line as described, the Record of Survey requirement has been triggered when the recording takes place. Similar to preparing a topographic map with a deed described boundary triggers a Record of Survey.

8762 does not mention monuments, only that you establish the deed described boundary line.

If you do a lot line adjustment and you are not required to do a field survey and show the line relative to existing improvements, a Record of Survey is not required.

In addition, how would a following surveyor know what monuments you relied upon for the new boundary line or if you had house setback that the Lot Line Adjustment was required to conform to?

[pls5528]

I

n the jurisdictions I work in or function as a City Surveyor the city requirement for a "site plan" usually triggers the record of survey. The site plan requires a tie from the new/proposed line to the existing physical features i.e. buildings, driveways, etc. the ties are used to verify th

ere are no negative impacts and/or setback encroachments etc.

Although this interpretation of the "ROS trigger" is my understanding NOW, I do not think it was by our general peers (perhaps 20 years ago or more?) I have seen the majority of "sIte plans" submitted by architects to city or county agencies, showing the property lines, and perhaps a combination of existing and proposed planimetric features relative thereto. A good example is the Lake of the Pines community near Auburn, Ca. The HOA needs to approve a diagram (site plan) of the existing/proposed conditions. For the most part, they are not even close to reality? Just about any infill project in typical city (from my experience had been the same. If I, on the other hand, have been involved, I add these details and costs to the respective client (contractually). Unfortunately, most, will go with someone "cheaper".

[Jim Frame]

If you are required to submit a site plan showing existing improvements to the proposed boundary line, it is approved by the agency and the property owners execute a deed creating a new line as described, the Record of Survey requirement has been triggered when the recording takes place.

It depends. If the requirement is to show that the distance from existing improvements to a parcel line exceeds a regulatory dimension, and that condition can be demonstrated without resorting to accurate measurements, then no ROS is required.

I recently provided an exhibit (not an LLA situation, but a regulatory approval process nonetheless) certifying that the house in question is more than 100 feet from the centerline of a creek. I determined the approximate distance from Google Earth imagery. I had some monument ties on and around the site that I had made for another purpose, which helped with scaling the photo. The dimension from creek to house is about 1,250 feet, so even without any ground control I was comfortable certifying that the distance exceeded 100 feet. No need for a ROS.

For another project -- which was an LLA -- the requirement was to show that the houses were at least 5' from the lot lines. This was in a recent subdivision with street centerline monuments in wells. I had an orthophoto of the area (0.5' pixel size) and was able to use the monument wells to check the scaling in both directions. Even with roof overhangs and relief displacement the buildings measured no closer than 8' from the lot lines. No need for a ROS.

For yet another LLA the requirement was that the new lot line be no closer than 15' to an existing barn. Some nearby ROSs in the same older subdivision showed that contemporary dimensions matched original record within a few tenths of a foot. I tied into few of the monuments (some original, some retracements) and found the proposed lot line to be a bit over 16' from the barn. Although I didn't do enough surveying to definitively establish the location of all the parcel lines, I had no problem certifying that the proposed lot line met the setback requirement. No ROS needed.

[dedkad]

As Warren mentioned, a LLA by parcel map is a good way to go if monuments are needed. The agency I worked for charged the same amount to review a LLA by document and a LLA by parcel map to help encourage the use of the parcel map. The parcel map option is also particularly helpful in showing easements that might be needed as a result of the LLA.

[mpallamary]

We adopted the Parcel Map/alternate procedure in San Diego.

https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/ ... manual.pdf