California Surveyors Forums

I've experienced a situation in which a map shows an Unmapped Remainder that includes an older deeded parcel. I believe that the included older parcel is merged and no longer exists. There is a difference of opinion and the person believes that that parcel still exists. In researching the SMA i only see a reference to "a Parcel". See no place where the Unmapped Remainder can include two parcels. Am I correct?

What are you basing this merger on? An unmapped remainder simply means a portion of land that isn't a part of the subdivision map, not that it is now a merged single parcel.

I don't see any reason to assume that the deeded parcel has been merged just because it is part of the Unmapped Remainder... you should find out if it -was- merged with the PIQ at any point of course, but there may be senior rights to consider if not.

I understand that the Unmapped Remainder represents that part not to be subdivided. But there are folks that point to the SMA section 66434(e)(1) and (e)(2) and the fact that all references are to a singular parcel, thereby eliminating the second parcel. I tend to agree with your view on the matter.

Woodcutter, thanks for the reference to AG opinion.

In the mid 80's a small parcel part of a remainder parcel was NOT considered a separate parcel by Santa Barbara county.

I was under the impression that when filing a map, you 'combined' all the parcels within the described boundaries (assuming multiple lots are being worked with) and it became a singular unit (an invisible step admittedly), and then was then divided up into the new parcels and the remainder parcel is necessary.

so, any parcel included into the remainder parcel, unless specifically excluded from the map, would have been absorbed into the remainder.


I don't see it any different if the parcel was wholly in the remainder parcel or if half of it became parcel 1 and the other half became the remainder parcel.

Does the SMA apply? What time frame are we talking about?

66424.6(d) gives the local agency the option of requiring a certificate or conditional certificate, so not only is it merged, you may have to meet conditions of apporval to get a certificate ( in order to sell it).

George Marchenko

Thanks to all who responded. The reference to the AG opinion was particularly helpful in our case. Specifically the reference to the second sentence of section 66424.6 which states that ".. the subdivider may omit entirely any unit of improved or unimproved land which is not divided for the purpose of sale...". In our case, the divider intends to make use of the lines of the included pre-existing deeded parcel in a lot line adjustment the form another lot for sale.