Certificate of Correction, Amending Map or New Final Map

[subman]

Another tale (facts changed to protect the innocent). An agency (not the County) approves a tentative map for a mixed use development with 100 residential condominium units on one lot and a commercial use on the second lot. Two years later a final map is recorded (the standard condominium note is inadvertently left off the final map), however under the preamble it is described as a subdivision for condominium purposes. The buildings are built. Four years later the agency approves something called a "vesting tentative tract map modification" using the same tract map number to create 2 additional commercial condominium units within the project.

The agency is looking to the County for guidance. The question posed to me by the surveyor of record: can I do a certificate of correction on the recorded final map to add a condominium note which states: The project was modified by the agency to be a condominium project for 100 residential units and 2 commercial units whereby the owners of the air space will hold an undivided interest in the common areas which will, in turn, provide the necessary access and utility easements for the units.

The owners are still the same, no change in the title report with respect to easements etc.

If a new final map were done, in my opinion, it would look exactly like the recorded map, except it would have the proper condominium note, the preamble reflecting the recent legal and current dates for the owners signatures. It would also mean more $$$$.

If an amended map were done, it would also look the same except for a certificate explaining the amendment and current dates for the owners signatures. It would also mean more $$$$.

Obviously, a Certificate of Correction is the least expensive most efficient method. Unfortunately, the conditions of approval on the vesting tentative tract map modification requires a final map to be recorded.

Assuming the agency were agreeable to change the condition requiring the final map to another alternative, I am interested in getting input on the appropiateness of using a Certificate of Correction. It smells right. I am just trying to make sure the legal framework fits the facts. Thanks in advance...

[PLS7393]

I personally do not like Certificate of Corrections, because they are a recorded document, and not shown on any filed map of record.

I do not know why you can't do an Amended Map without the additional $$$$.
The cost to do an amended map shouldn't be much more than just the recording fees, maybe some additional review time, but that is it.

[goodgps]

Man,
I don't see a necessity to change anything. People must be educated to realize that a preamble is the most important thing in a description.
Waht was approved at the planning commission level. I'd read that first.

you state that it is clearly stated that the intent is for condominium purpose (et al) does it limit the units in verbage ?

What do you mean by "a standard condominium note" any way? is that note in compliance with the SMA ? I'm a little confused by that one ????

Shucks I may not be helping you here, but there are big holes in the paragraph.

Study it out some more. I'll do the same and get back with you.

"Harris"

[subman]

Good,

See the attached sample PM. This is a typical note used by all cities in Los Angeles County. May not be a local practice up your way. The standard condo note I refer to is highlighted in yellow and states how many airspace units were authorized by the Planning Agency for the condominium subdivision. And yes, this sample map was my first official action as a licensed land surveyor...

[goodgps]

Thanks,

In the case where the surveyor recorded the map this way, a simple certificate of correction should suffice. The surveyor should file that right away. it will take him an hour to prepare.

He will simply state that the number 3 will change to the appropriate number.

NOW, before you have him prepare the certificate, Check with your planning commission to see if that is a problem. If they are ok with it, then go for it. If NOT, then the project may have to be presented to the commission for re-approval. MY GUESS is that it will be fine to add the extra condos. They really present no social problems. . . now if they were to add a shopping center or apartment complex, that would be a different matter.

Condos (if residential) are just that. . .residential. If it is a business condo, in a mixed use, it definately has to return to commission for approval.

Thank you so much for letting me comment on this. you're a good guy "Sub"


"good"

[PLS7393]

You might want to look at section 66427(e) (1) of the SMA, to verify the governing body is ok with the revision.