Lot Line Adjustment - No Perfecting Deeds Recorded

[jkcpls]

Has anyone ever encountered a recorded lot line adjustment that did not include perfecting deeds? I surveyed a parcel in the City of Rancho Cordova that had a lot line adjustment recorded in 2024 without perfecting deeds, which essentially makes it invalid per SMA 66412(d), but it's still somewhat of a cloud on title. In addition, the LLA is riddled with errors, including a 1.55' misclosure in one of the parcels. The LLA also includes more than 4 parcels. It's very odd, because the LLA includes a parent parcel (lot from a subdivision map) excluding 4 parcels that were previously deeded to various public agencies in 2005, 2007 & 2008, but those 4 parcels were also included in the LLA, 3 of which remained the same, and the 4th being adjusted with the remainder of the parent parcel.

We have been in contact with the city, and apparently the LLA was issued by Planning and never reviewed by Public Works. The city is now scratching their head trying to figure out how to rescind the LLA. Any input would be appreciated.

John E. Klamm, PLS 7375

[Warren Smith]

This is an issue with agencies that do not include survey review. We are, after.all, authorized to perform planning duties associated with parcel configurations.
Planning's authority is to oversee land use consistency, but the use of an LLA needs to conform with SMA guidelines. Approval of an application is contingent on the recording of transfer of ownership of the newly adjusted parcels.
It may be that this approval is void as a matter of law, and needs to be rescinded. Was the approval recorded (as it should have been)?

[jkcpls]

Thanks Warren! The LLA approval, signed by planning, was recorded in 2024. The approval does contain the following statement: "the BLA will be recorded within 6 months of the approval date or become null and void". My opinion is that, with the absence of the perfecting deeds, the LLA is in fact null and void, but convincing the title company to remove the exception from title might be difficult.

Rancho Cordova contracts with Willdan for their survey review. I've done many LLAs in Rancho Cordova, and they have always gone through survey review, so I'm not sure how this one slipped through.

[Ric7308]

Certainly hope legal descriptions were not reviewed by unlicensed individuals as part of that process.

[LS_8750]

I've seen many.
The recorded LLA approval letter grants permission to exchange the lands.
No recorded grant deeds exchanging lands equals no LLA action taken.
The exchange of lands never took place.
Snooze = Lose

More than four parcels = SMA violation

Toss it.

[DWoolley]

More than four parcels = SMA violation

Toss it.

In my experience, this is not a simple issue.

I have seen subsequent conveyances that ignored an approved Lot Line Adjustment because the implementing deeds were never exchanged. I have also seen subsequent conveyances that recognized the adjustment even though the deeds were never conveyed. Either way, an approved but unconsummated Lot Line Adjustment creates uncertainty in the chain of title.

There is also no clear mechanism for extinguishing an approved Lot Line Adjustment that was never completed - they do not expire like a tentative map. As a result, there are undoubtedly approved Lot Line Adjustments still sitting in the record with no implementing deeds ever recorded.

Another recurring problem is financing. Parties record the Lot Line Adjustment and the deeds, but fail to obtain corresponding modifications to existing deeds of trust. The lender's security instrument then remains attached to a legal description that no longer exists in its original form, creating additional title complications.

I have also encountered successive Lot Line Adjustments being used in ways that appear inconsistent with the intent of the Subdivision Map Act. In some cases, agencies have even suggested multiple Lot Line Adjustments as a path forward. Clearly, this is subversion of the SMA.

None of this surprises me. The history of surveying, title law, recording statutes, subdivision regulation, and professional licensure is largely the history of correcting problems created when people discovered ways to exploit gaps in the system. Our profession exists because property rights cannot be left to self-policing. Lot Line Adjustments are no exception.

DWoolley

[DWoolley]

When I find myself in proximity to a proposal utilizing successive Lot Line Adjustments as a substitute for the map process contemplated by the Subdivision Map Act, my approach is generally as follows:

We have reviewed the application and are returning it as submitted. The proposed lot line adjustment involves more than four existing adjoining parcels and does not conform to Government Code § 66412(d) or the City of [insert here] Lot Line Adjustment procedures. The submittal cannot be accepted in its current form.

On your suggestion of processing three successive LLAs, I want to be direct about why that approach is problematic before you advise your client to proceed.

Government Code § 66412(d) limits lot line adjustments to four or fewer existing adjoining parcels. That limit reflects a deliberate legislative judgment: reconfigurations involving more than four parcels require the scrutiny of the parcel map process, including the review, noticing, and findings that process entails. The California Attorney General has addressed the identical circumvention issue in the context of successive parcel maps—the practice of submitting sequential four-parcel filings to avoid tract map requirements. The Attorney General's conclusion was unambiguous: the Legislature did not intend to create an administrative mechanism by which successive compliant filings could be used to achieve an aggregate result the statute was written to prevent.

The case you may be relying upon is Sierra Club v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 162. That decision upheld a Napa County ordinance against a facial challenge only. The court was explicit that it was not reviewing any specific project approval and expressly acknowledged that challenges based upon purported gamesmanship in an as-applied context remain available. The court upheld the Napa ordinance because it imposed meaningful temporal constraints—including recordation of deeds before any subsequent application could be filed—and because Napa had adopted a local ordinance expressly authorizing the process. The decision does not stand for the proposition that successive LLAs are available as a matter of right to aggregate parcels beyond the statutory limit. It upheld one county's carefully structured ordinance against a facial challenge. It did not immunize the strategy your client is proposing from an as-applied challenge.

More fundamentally, whether a city has adopted a sequential LLA ordinance does not resolve the legislative-intent question. The four-parcel limitation in § 66412(d) was enacted through SB 497 in 2001 specifically to address concerns regarding land reconfigurations circumventing Map Act review. Processing three successive LLAs to achieve a reconfiguration involving more than four parcels raises the same concern the Legislature sought to address when it imposed the four-parcel limitation: the use of successive filings to accomplish an aggregate result that would otherwise require parcel map review.

The correct vehicle for this project is a parcel map. Depending upon the scope of the proposal, a parcel map with waiver of the tentative map may be available. In my experience, that process will not take materially longer than carrying three successive LLAs through to recordation, each of which must be fully completed and the implementing deeds recorded before the next application can be submitted.

If the City of [insert here] nonetheless determines to approve successive LLAs in this matter, I respectfully request that another firm be retained to review those applications. I am not in a position to certify work that I believe is inconsistent with the legislative purpose of Government Code § 66412(d).

As the old song goes, "They see me rollin'..."

DWoolley