California Surveyors Forums

I have attached two PDF files.

One is an assessor map showing subject lot 54 as having two 20 foot wide access strips (20 feet is the City of Los Angeles minimum width for frontage. Show them one that is 19.99' wide and game over) to two parcels of land that use the 20 foot wide strips to access other properties.

Along the entire right of way, Lot 54 is the only one that has this two strip configuration. All the rest of the lots along the street have normal street frontage.

The second PDF shows a re established Lot 54 at less than 40 feet wide.

Has the filing surveyor of the RS slandered title by creating less than minimum city required access frontage?

Note that the surveyor didn't *create* the substandard frontage, he implicitly claims that he *found* it.

One of the elements needed to prove slander of title is the existence of malice on the part of the alleged slanderer. "Malice" in this context is variously defined as making or publishing a statement with the "knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard as to whether it is false or not"; with "a lack of good faith or probable cause"; with "an intent to deceive or injure"; with "full knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff"; and "deliberate conduct without reasonable cause." It'd be pretty hard to find that a competent surveyor who made a good-faith effort consistent with the standard of practice did so maliciously.

You can be sued by anyone for anything. The suit may not have merit, but you still have to spend time and money defending against it. In certain circumstances you can recoup at least a portion of those costs. But I wouldn't think that the map in question constitutes slander of title, provided that it correctly represents extant conditions.

Now, if someone were to take a development plan into the city and get turned down because their frontage is a tenth of a foot shy of the statutory width, a suit for slander of title against the city might get some traction. There has to be an error budget for translating statutory requirements onto the ground; I think a court would have a hard time telling a plaintiff that their property is ineligible for a multi-million-dollar development because it's 0.01 foot too narrow. When enough money is on the line, exceptions to the rules tend to get made.

Jim Frame wrote:Note that the surveyor didn't *create* the substandard frontage, he implicitly claims that he *found* it.

All that you said has merit. However the surveyor did create the shortage. He prorated in both of the sidelines of Lot 54.

1) Is there better evidence of the lot lines than proration?

2) Depending on how the Deeds are written, the two easement strips may overlap therefore, if so, each lot in the rear has rights to 20 feet width.

However the surveyor did create the shortage. He prorated in both of the sidelines of Lot 54.

I would expect the surveyor to respond by saying that he established the boundary locations according to the best available evidence. That would represent what he found rather than something he created.

Whether he actually met the standard of practice is another question entirely.

Here in the local burg I work for, we would not use the RS map to determine the frontage. Assuming the assessor's map and the original subdivision map show 20 feet (or 40 feet for Lot 54 in the sub map) then they would be okay... We would check to see if the split of Lot 54 was a legit or not.

geoshale wrote:Here in the local burg I work for, we would not use the RS map to determine the frontage. Assuming the assessor's map and the original subdivision map show 20 feet (or 40 feet for Lot 54 in the sub map) then they would be okay... We would check to see if the split of Lot 54 was a legit or not.

As you know, a LLA in Glendale for a situation like this would NEVER take place. I don't know if that one planner still works there, Wolf or some name like that, but he had killed a lot of simple LLA apps because he believed that moving a title line created a 'new lot'.

Does Glendale still require a 100' minimum frontage for adjusting a lot line by 2 inches??

We get inquiries on a regular basis about undeveloped parcels and I tell them the same, "...If a parcel is not developed, there is a reason why." Do your due diligence...

Many years ago (over 25) we had a lady come to the counter asking what she needed to do to build a house. The lot is in an undeveloped hillside area. She was told she needed to extend the road & utilities (inc sewer) to the property. She asked if the City would construct everything?? And was told we don't. Then she tells us she bought the lot for $100k, what was her options... Ouch $$$ thrown away.

LS 4722 wrote:As you know, a LLA in Glendale for a situation like this would NEVER take place. I don't know if that one planner still works there, Wolf or some name like that, but he had killed a lot of simple LLA apps because he believed that moving a title line created a 'new lot'.

Does Glendale still require a 100' minimum frontage for adjusting a lot line by 2 inches??

I don't know what the minimum frontage is... but the planner in question (I think I know who your talking about) is retired now.

In SLO county an area where half acre lots were legal a one acre lot split into 2 parcels was denied because along one side line was a 5ft surface drainage easement. The side yard set backs were also 5 ft. The planner insisted that the easement reduced the size of the lot. Didn't effect the tax bill though.

land butcher wrote:In SLO county an area where half acre lots were legal a one acre lot split into 2 parcels was denied because along one side line was a 5ft surface drainage easement. The side yard set backs were also 5 ft. The planner insisted that the easement reduced the size of the lot. Didn't effect the tax bill though.

The planner needs a different line of work. It is obviously incompetent in this one.

land butcher wrote:In SLO county an area where half acre lots were legal a one acre lot split into 2 parcels was denied because along one side line was a 5ft surface drainage easement. The side yard set backs were also 5 ft. The planner insisted that the easement reduced the size of the lot. Didn't effect the tax bill though.

Was this awhile ago? In 2000, the County issued a letter stating their policy on net lot areas. It includes the statement:
"If the easement falls within a required setback area, don’t subtract."

So according to their current policy, the two lots would be OK.

This was before 2000. Probably the reason for the formal policy letter

There was a worse one in SLO county where a client wanted to cut a 5 ac parcel out of ~40 ac. The planner said ok and even suggested some 60x80 R1 lots along another side. Client only wanted to cut the 5ac out. After field work and 5in tall package was sent in, waited 180 days, it was denied - Because they changed their minds.

Gotta love No Growth areas.