Certificate of Compliance, General Question

[PE_PLS]

Background: I have a potential client who owns 3 lots in a 1958 subdivision in the SF Bay Area. In 1959 a single house was built over 2 of the lots, and the assessor merged the two lots for tax purposes. The rest of the subdivision contains single houses on single lots. This is the only outlier in the subdivision. The client wants to build a house on the 3rd lot. The 3rd lot has always been vacant and has it's own APN. It would seem to me this is a slam dunk that the owner has a legal vacant parcel. This is not some 1900s or 1910s subdivision where individual lots conveyed together didn't mean anything.

Question: I have a feeling that the agency will require that the owner obtain a COC prior to developing the lot. And that's fine (thought it will cost thousands of dollars and am told will take 6-12 months to obtain), but I was wondering something: Is there a point in time, where it would be unreasonable that an agency would require a COC? Is there a cutoff date in time, where lots created after that time, that show up on a legitimate tract or parcel map, shouldn't require a COC, unless some major red flag (structures built across two lots, etc.) is up? It seems that by the post war 1940s lots shown on approved and recorded tract maps shouldn't need to go through the COC process....but what do i know. Appreciate any insight, especially from agency professionals who might enlighten me about things I'm missing.

Thanks,
Dylan

[hellsangle]

Dylan,

1). Assuming there has not been a Voluntary Merger

2). If issuance of a building permit upon one of the two Assessor's Parcel numbers - constitutes a Certificate of Compliance, (COC).

3). If parcels have not been voluntarily merged . . . the recorded map stands as legal lots. Let's say that home is about to fall down and should be demolished and removed. I would suspect there are three lots based upon a recorded subdivision map, (post 1929).

Below is the law:

66499.34 . . .

The issuance of a permit or grant of approval for development of real property, or with respect to improvements that have been completed prior to the time a permit or grant of approval for development was required by local ordinances in effect at the time of the improvement, or with respect to improvements that have been completed in reliance upon a permit or grant of approval for development, shall constitute “real property which has been approved for development,” for the purposes of subdivision (c) of Section 66499.35, and upon request by the person owning the real property or a vendee of such person pursuant to a contract of sale, the local agency shall issue a certificate of compliance for the affected real property.


66499.35 . . .

(c) A certificate of compliance shall be issued for any real property that has been approved for development pursuant to Section 66499.34.

(d) A recorded final map, parcel map, official map, or an approved certificate of exception shall constitute a certificate of compliance with respect to the parcels of real property described therein.

(e) An official map prepared pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 66499.52 shall constitute a certificate of compliance with respect to the parcels of real property described therein and may be filed for record, whether or not the parcels are contiguous, so long as the parcels are within the same section or, with the approval of the city engineer or county surveyor, within contiguous sections of land.

Good luck and best wishes for the Fourth of July weekend!

Crazy Phil - Sonoma

[pls5528]

It is common practice in California for the Assessor to combine two or more Assessor parcels into one, which before were, separate tax bills for each. By such this combination merges two or more current assessor parcels into one tax bill. This action is for property assessment purposes only. It does not imply legal lot status nor does it constitute legal lot approval by any Planning/Building authority. That being said, the legal lots are still based upon the original subdivision map. In the event of future construction/development of these two lots, I am near certain that they will require a COC. Relative to the third vacant parcel on its own legal subdivision lot, I don't see where that would be applicable. If they do, it may be simply a way to clean it up? I have to say that performing surveys and doing developments in San Francisco and Berkeley areas are different than most other areas and can be quite challenging! Good luck to you.