California Surveyors Forums

The legal description of the parcel to be split includes a portion of City dedicated right-of-way. The title officer suggested I remove the right-of-way area from the subdivision boundary on the parcel map. In this particular case, it would clean things up and make some sense because the parcel was a flag lot that use to take access off a different road. Now there is right-of-way fronting the parcel (where the parcel takes access) and the flag portion of the lot has also been dedicated as right-of-way to the City.

That got me thinking... Is the subdivision boundary strictly the legal boundaries of the parcel per the deed?

What's the difference between stopping the subdivision boundary at the right-of-way that was dedicated via map (this is the norm in San Diego) or stopping the subdivision boundary at the right-of-way dedicated per separate document?

I know there has been discussion about showing the subdivision boundary to street centerline to show that if the street (and all other easements) were vacated that ownership would go to the fronting lots.

Point to ponder, by not showing a right-of-way, are you taking on a liability of not informing your client or future owners or attached rights or encumbering rights?

I would also review the City's subdivision ordinance.

Just random thoughts

The depiction of subdivision boundaries seems to vary by jurisdication. In rural areas, large lots are easier to dimension to centerline - high density subdivisions, not so much.
I don't think that showing a distinctive border along the existing right of way would have an impact on the ultimate disposition upon a street vacation. Proper research would determine where the underlying fee ownership always was.
My impression is that only the newly created lot lines are shown on a subdivision map, and the appropriate prolongations would come into play at the proper time. The alternative would be to show dashed lines within the right of way - not the best drafting style ...
Gross areas are calculated to the centerline, and net areas (for assessment purposes) calculated from the lot dimensions.

Sorry, I mis read the question. If you stop the boundary at the right-of-way, who owns the street? The original owner, the agency? I guess it depends on the intent of the offer and the acceptance.

66424 allows me to subdivide "any unit or units of improved or unimproved land, or any portion thereof, shown on the latest equalized county assessment roll as a unit or as contiguous units"

What portion of the subdivision map act allows me to subdivide property not not shown as a unit on the tax roll (for example, a road)?

Interesting point, Keith.

The Assessor's office segregates public rights-of-way from its tax base. The reference in the SMA to a "unit or contiguous unit" probably relates more to a determination as to what is allowed to be subdivided.

The underlying fee title within those public rights-of-way is still 'attached' to the adjacent lots. Since the right-of-way is held by a local agency in trust on behalf of the public (it takes a special process to vacate that interest), subsequent resubdivision can take place and the reversionary interest remains with a new lot configuration.

Mike Durkee spoke last week about those special interests ...

66434(e) requires me show the boundary of the subdivision.

It does not say boundary of fee title interest.

We typically do not show the fee title interest on the interior lots being created within a subdivision. Why would we show it on the parent parcel?

It looks like it boils down to whether including an existing right of way in the boundary of the land being subdivided may make a difference in its future status if vacated.
If in fee, it wouldn't be sensible to include, because the local agency will have the option later of granting out as it sees fit.
If an easement interest, the underlying fee owners are consenting to a subdivision of their current lot lines.
Woodcutter brings up a scenario which may sever the relationship between the original lot lines (to centerline) and the reconfigured lot lines at the right of way line.
Picture a future vacation with offset connections to adjacent lots - or no connections at all.
This will be worth looking at case law to see if there is an implied intent to alter the fee ownership as a whole, whether shown within a distinctive border or not.
If the mapping is done via a merger and resubdivision without reversion to acreage (SMA 66499.20.2), this issue may be addressed properly.

Once a portion of the fee title interest has been accepted as a road, any further actions concerning that portion of the interest are controlled by the Streets and Highways Code and not by the Subdivision Map Act.

Where in the SMA are we given authority to override the Streets and Highways Code?

There might be a reason for the wording in 66424. It is possible that streets and highways were intended to be excluded and that it is not just "inadequate construction".

Ben:
I deal with this a lot and I suggest you clearly show the exterior extent of the fee title being subdivided. Doing this will:
- Make the extent of fee title clear (aren’t our surveys supposed to do that, and how do you comply with 66434(e) without doing that?)
- Not add to the mess that is land title by leaving open the possibility that the road might be a fee strip from some long lost deed, part of the properties across the street, or attached to some parcel a half mile down the road.
- Keep people from having to ponder Civil Code Sections 831 & 1112, and Code of Civil Procedure Section 2077 (4).
- Make it clear to a landowner that there is underlying fee area that he can add to his unencumbered fee area (when allowed by zoning and subdivision ordinances), bringing his lot to a split-able size, and allowing him to hire you to do the split.
- Allow identification of gross and net areas for evaluation of lot split-ability.
- Educate the land title folks, assessor’s map makers, description writers, and land owners who think that most roads are separate from the parcel adjoining them, rather than encumbered pieces of those parcels.

This is especially important if there are not a lot of surveys around, or subdivisions of, the subject property. If conditions are well known and well documented, it’s not so important. However, 66434(e) says do it:

“The exterior boundary of the land included within the subdivision shall be indicated by distinctive symbols and clearly so designated. The exterior boundary of the land included within the subdivision shall not include a designated remainder or omitted parcel that is designated or omitted under Section 66424.6. The designated remainder or omitted parcel shall be labeled as a designated remainder parcel or omitted parcel. The map shall show the definite location of the subdivision, and particularly its relation to surrounding surveys.

For your land title officer, he can still use “Lot Z per Sudivision Xâ€￾ for the description, while your map will show the details.

Keith: You say “once a portion of the fee title interest has been accepted as road……â€￾. Yes, if the road right of way is owned in fee by the city, county, or state, it’s separate property and not part of the subdivision. More often in my experience though, the right of way is merely an easement over part of the fee title of the parcel. The public easement is a substantial encumbrance, often treated as an exclusive easement, but an easement just the same. Do you exclude all easement areas from the parcels you subdivide?

Chris

Where is the code that allows me to subdivide land that is not

"shown on the latest equalized county assessment roll as a unit or as contiguous units"?

How can you subdivide a road (granted as an easement and subject to the Streets and Highways code)
"for the purpose of sale, lease or financing, whether immediate or future"?

Or do we use a different definition of "Subdivision" than that provided by statute?

Ben,

It would be helpful to have a sketch of the situation you are talking about to aid in the discussion.

Back when I surveyed in San Diego County, the map checkers were trained to check for the heavy border to the centerline of the road where reversionary rights exist. Perhaps things have changed.

It can help to avoid future title issues regarding ownership of these reversionary areas to clearly include them in your subdivison. For example, the City of San Diego had to go to great lengths to track down heirs of the original subdivider in some areas for street vacations on the downtown ballpark project.

Keith:
You ask: “How can you subdivide a road (granted as an easement and subject to the Streets and Highways code) for the purpose of sale, lease or financing, whether immediate or future"? The answer is you are not subdividing a road because the road is in an easement, an easement is not land, and land is what 66424 is about. You’re right that the only way to modify that easement is with the easement holders blessing, but to do what I suggested has zero affect on the easement. Your map may show some lines and dimensions across an easement, but that’s just showing how the existing easement relates to the exterior (and maybe interior) lines of your subdivision.

All easements are subject to various laws (e.g. Civil Code 807) but you seem to be thinking that being subject to the Streets and Highways Code makes a public right of way easement special. It’s true that because of what they are they get treated in a special way by nearly everybody, but in looking at the level of property interest that is there, it’s just an easement.

Regarding what’s “shown on the latest equalized county assessment roll”, if only it were that easy. I can show you assessors parcels that are illustrated at tens of acres but are actually hundreds of acres in size, and single parcels that are actually many legal parcels. On the other hand, 66424 refers to “assessment roll” (not “assessors map”), and the roll will refer to the deed, and the deed will say Parcel 2 per Subdivision X, and the Subdivision X map may show that fee goes to centerline or, if not, it will refer to the deed for the property being subdivided, which deed you will find says that title runs to centerline or to some other point that falls out in the road. So there really is no conflict between mapping fee title out into a road (easement) and what 66424 says.

You asked “why show fee title out in a road on the exterior of the parent parcel”. Because 66434e says to, and because the land title folks and future surveyors will thank you.

I haven't had the experience yet of the agencies in San Diego County asking to show the subdivision boundary to the centerline of the road easement (where the original fee ownership stopped). I have experienced the opposite for cities in the North County.