Road Easement on FM Lots

[Scott]

Should existing road easement courses encumbering lots in a Final Map subdivision be labeled/dimensioned?

Since those easements are not assessed to the fee owner, local common practice in my area (I know lotsa people don't like that wording) is to make those courses the "Blue Border" (Subdivision Boundary) of the map.

I'm ok if they want to go out to the deed line (CL of road) for the Subdivision Boundary (since that is technically correct), but I feel the easement courses need to be labeled/dimensioned on the FM.

[Warren Smith]

This becomes important should a future road vacation take place - due to realignment, say. It helps determine the underlying fee ownership once the public easement is vacated.

[steffan]

Food for thought, are public easements different than private easements, in that the actual dimensions would be based on extent of improvements instead of granted dimensions? See Rye vs Tahoe Truckee Sierra Disposal.

[Scott]

Should existing public road easement courses encumbering lots in a Final Map subdivision be labeled/dimensioned?

[steffan]

SMA Section 66434(g) may be of some, particularly where it states:
“66434
(g) Any public streets or public easements to be left in effect after the subdivision shall be adequately delineated on the map….”
“adequately delineated” might be open to interpretation, but it seems reasonable to expect labeling and dimensioning as being “adequate”

[DWoolley]

Should existing road easement courses encumbering lots in a Final Map subdivision be labeled/dimensioned?

Since those easements are not assessed to the fee owner, local common practice in my area (I know lotsa people don't like that wording) is to make those courses the "Blue Border" (Subdivision Boundary) of the map.

I'm ok if they want to go out to the deed line (CL of road) for the Subdivision Boundary (since that is technically correct), but I feel the easement courses need to be labeled/dimensioned on the FM.

Under Gov. Code (SMA) §§ 66434(g) (Final Maps) and 66445(j) (Parcel Maps), mandates that all public streets and easements that will remain in effect after a subdivision must be clearly shown and delineated on the final or parcel map. This ensures that these public rights-of-way and other easements are properly identified and preserved, and that their location is unambiguous to avoid future conflicts or confusion regarding their use and public access.

That means labeled and dimensioned—not merely referenced, symbolized, or simply graphically delineated.

As a map checker, how am I supposed to verify the accuracy of an easement’s location without its bearings and distances, ties to corners or locational ties? The easement owner’s interest must be both shown and protected - same as the trust deeds or any other interest.

Bensonites, leaving them off is not “local practice”; it’s noncompliant with the Subdivision Map Act and falls below professional standards of care.

DWoolley

[Scott]

Thank you steffan!
I was looking at the PM counterpart to that: 45(j).

I did not find 'delineated' in Blacks.

Websters:
1 a: having or forming clear edges or boundaries
Deserts are wildly heterogeneous, composed of numerous, disparate, sharply delineated microenvironments.—
Bil Gilbert
These tumors tend to be invasive and extend beyond delineated margins.—
Dennis P. O'Brien and Joan R. Coates
b: marked with drawn or painted lines
delineated bike lanes
the delineated areas of the map
2: described or portrayed with accuracy or in detail
… the military, with its clearly delineated roles, ranks, chains of command, and reservations of authority.

I like 2, but 1b is the only one that mentions 'map'.

[Scott]

Thank you DWoolley. I like that and agree.

Gonna continue a sidetrack on my own thread here:
Just to be clear: the 'local practice' is to show the subdivision boundary to the assessed parcel , whether or not public rights are easements or fee.
Though it is technically correct to show the subdivision boundary the total gross fee parcel, including the non-assessed public 'easements' (out to CL).
I have done both, depending on the situation, but mostly use only the assessed land as the boundary.

It can be very difficult to find out if a public right is fee or easement. I had one where the owner was a public utility that wanted to expand their power plant over a roadway that split their property. We had to get an expert title person agreed upon by both the jurisdiction and public utility to give an opinion. It was a long time ago. I think I remember the document (very old) actually saying "fee", but the expert said that before such and such a date the jurisdiction could not have accepted it in fee (similar to date of PM ordinances relation to Certificate of Compliance).

Back to regularly scheduled programing:
The question of this thread is "Should existing public road easement courses encumbering lots in a Final Map or Parcel Map subdivision be labeled/dimensioned?"

This is the first map I've come across that doesn't label/dimension existing public road easement courses encumbering lots in a Final Map or Parcel Map.

[Elias French]

Yes.