California Surveyors Forums

GIVEN:

Farmer A owns a section of land.

In 1913, he sells the NE 1/4 to Farmer B reserving the westerly 20 feet for road purposes, then sells the SE 1/4 to Farmer C reserving the westerly 20 feet for road purposes, and then sells the SW 1/4 to Farmer D reserving the easterly 20 feet for road purposes.

In 1927, Farmer B obtains easements, for road purposes, across Farmer C and Farmer D’s properties, which happens to coincide with 20 foot reservations held by Farmer A.

In 1933, all four farmers collectively dedicate a 40 foot wide road, which the centerline is described as the N-S ¼ Section Line, to the County.

In 2003, City annexes the west 1/2 of the section including the 40 foot wide road from County

In ~2006, Farmer D deeds to the City the SW 1/4.

In 2011, Farmer C deeds the City, in fee, the westerly 20 feet of Farmer C’s land. At which point, the City then abandons the southerly portion of the acquired property since the roadway is to be re-routed.

QUESTION:

Does Farmer A have any interest in the newly abandoned land which was a part of the 20 foot reservations on Farmer C and Farmer D’s land (1913)?

Does Farmer B have any interest in the newly abandoned land which was a part of the 20 foot easements on Farmer C and Farmer D’s land (1927)?

Is there anything in the Streets and Highways Code regarding this situation?

I think you will find your answer in Streets and Highways Code Sections 8352 and 8353

I would think only if it eliminates access. They dedicated the land to the city which I would think overrode the easements. So if its just a realignment then A & B have no reason/right to fight for the original alignment.

Vacation is of public rights only, there are still private rights, but they must be claimed.