California Surveyors Forums

Can a public agency (City of Poway) require that monuments be set as a condition of approval for a Lot Line Adjustment? This is a simple LLA with a 100'
rear line moving 20'. I would rather not set the new corners if I don't have to since that would require a ROS and County of San Diego charges such high fees
to record.
Would such a requirement have to be a City ordinance/statute or can the Planner just tell me it's required?

Yes, it is most like covered under Building code requirements for new construction inspection.

There is no new building, construction, improvements, or grading proposed.

Might also be in the zoning code. SMA §64412(d) left back doors open to the local agencies to legally violate the intent of the limitations stated in the section.

If there is no portions of the building or zoning codes, or in general or specific plan for the area, then they do not have that authority EXCEPT if the LLA triggers a requirement under PLSA §8762(b), most notably, subsection (4).

Thanks for that AGO Woodcutter. Many local jurisdictions have been using the zoning and building codes as a back door to make this requirement. I questioned one agency and was assured that County counsel had studied the matter and concluded that the County could make such a requirement through the zoning code. They would not provide a copy of that opinion though. After seeing this AGO, it's no wonder.

Locally, we got it straightened out only because one of the county supervisors is also a PLS and got directly involved in updating the county's LLA ordinance. It's kind of difficult for the staff planners charged with rewriting the ordinance to tell the supervisor to pound sand when their department head works at the pleasure of the board.

Unless there is case law which supercedes the AGO, it will be a good tool to convince local agencies to back down.

City of Inglewood, about 10 years ago, required a PM for a lot line obliteration.

Since many times topo is required to do determine where to put the new line in a LLA I think the setting of new corners should be required. What good is a new PL without the corners.
I'm sure there are arguments against setting the corners.
It's too bad the fees for filing a RS are so outrageous in some jurisdictions. In reality a RS is a record of a survey and county review should be minimal.

I think the PM for "lot line obliteration" would fall under a Parcel Merger and the Subd. Map Act would apply.

we have done it in the City of Newport Beach for as long as I can remember. Also County of Orange did it to me a couple of times, (County Real Estate Division)....but all of these where done for construction.

Gentlemen, thanks for the info and replies. TIB

I checked with the City of Poway as Mike suggested. A statute in their Municipal Code on Boundary Adjustments states that they may require monumentation at the discretion of the City Engineer.

The section below is abridged from the City of Poway’s municipal code:

16.14.070 Conditions for approval of adjustment plats.

Whenever applicable, the City Engineer may prescribe the following conditions for approval of an adjustment plat:

E. Record of Survey Map. When, in the opinion of the City Engineer, boundary monumentation or information of record on the parcels being adjusted is lacking, or where the proposed new boundary lines are of such alignment or complexity that their locations will not be readily traceable, or when any resultant parcel will thereafter be of such size as to allow division, then the City Engineer may require that all or specified portions of the parcels be surveyed and monumented, in which case record of survey map, prepared in accordance with the State Land Surveyors Act, shall be prepared and filed with the County Recorder;

F. Deeds. Provision of copies of the recorded deeds conveying land between the applicants to effectuate the adjustment. (Ord. 80 § 1, 1982; CC § 81.503)

Based on the information above, would a judge (competent or otherwise) issue a writ? It is not the planner authorizing the “opinion”, but the City Engineer.

That is the same statute that I was saw. I requested a determination from the City Engineer prior to proceeding. There has been no response, yet. My gut feeling is that they will require monumentation just because they can. I agree that new corners and ROS is the best option, plus I need the work. But I don't really want to try and fight City Hall either.
However, on the other hand, I also want to be fair with my client. They are very clear that they do not want to spend the extra $ if it is not required. Paper Plats and recorded documents would be just fine with them, especially if it would save them a nice chunk of cash.
Could I fight it? Would I win? Is it worth the fight? I have my doubts. Really big doubts.
Any thoughts or ideas out there?
TIB

Point well taken Woodcutter. Thanks for your input/opinion
TIB

Good point of the City Eng, pre 82 or not, if not, not qualified to make the decision.

R/S for LLA is not a bad thing. Another document in public record. Required?
depends on the PLS Act, should you give your client the option? Yes, still not a bad idea to discuss with you client, likely to be better for your client and the public in the long run. May help avoid future conflict. Most of the public can understand a map, few can grasp a description.

A few have made the point that a RS to reflect a LLA is a good thing, and I agree. If it is not required but you can convince your client that it is still advisable though not required, so much the better.

But some have judged whether or not local ordinances requiring an RS contrary to the expressed intent of 66412(d) based upon their own opinion that a LLA should be reflected on a map. I have two comments on that line of reasoning:

1. It is not your opinion, but the legislature's intent and the court's interpretation of that intent that gives effect to the law. When we have occasion to express opinions as to the application of law, the measure cannot be whether or not we like it, but it must be by the intent of the lawmakers, the view of the courts, and the authority given through superior law (state law over local ordinance).

2. An opinion expressed by a surveyor in favor of an ordinance which automatically produces more work (and more fee) for the surveyor would seem self-serving without an adequate foundation for that opinion. that foundation cannot be your own arguments of the benefits of having a survey alone. Those are merely selling points properly used to convince a client that they "should" have a survey performed. The opinion on the validity of a requirement must be made with a proper foundation in the law. Without that foundation, you are potentially misrepresenting an optional albeit advisable service as a required one. Misrepresentation is one of those things that can earn one a citation from BPELS against one's license.


Excellent post (#18) Woodcutter.

While we should tell our client's that the agencies request is out of line, many clients just want to get the project done.

We should be like lawyers, Drs and other professions/trades and get laws passed that do increase our business under the guise of it being a benefit to the public.

I'd love to have a rule for lot surveys like the newly mandated carbon monoxide detectors that are only good for 5 years and automatically go berserk to remind you you have to buy a new one.

If you have established the proposed line relative to existing features to show you are maintaining the proper setbacks, etc..., are you not on the hook to file a ROS, once the deed is executed describing the new line?

Per the State Board Plain_Language_Rules - Lot Line Adjustments
"A local agency or advisory agency may review and approve a lot line adjustment that does not create a greater number of parcels between two or more existing adjacent parcels. The adjusted lot line shall be reflected in a recorded deed. A record of survey shall be filed for recordation if monuments are set to mark the adjusted property (lot) line or if a field survey is performed to set or establish the former and/or adjusted property (lot) lines or corners of the parcels subject to the lot line adjustment.
(Gov. Code § 66412, Bus. & Prof. Code § 8762)"

Woodcutter wrote:Not necessarily. If the existing boundary is already established and the relationship is interpreted on the ground between the existing boundary and the desired useage, then the resultant adjustment may be based on those existing conditions, (provided of course that it isn't physically established on the ground).

I believe that is why 66412d is written the way it is.

I post this only for my own developement, I very well may be wrong and apologize in adavance if this is taken the wrong way.

How can the relationship on the ground be interpreted without the benefit of a field survey? Does interpretation not require examination of evidence, granted a filed map may be evidence but how can you be certain without measurement that the positions indicated on the map are the same location indicated (within the anticipated error of ellipse) without determining the positions in the field? Does not the position of the original monument as placed hold?

I think it gets confusing when we try to interpret codes, laws, professional requirements in the abstract, or semi-abstract. Solutions and conclusions often/usually vary once you get around to applying them to specific examples.