California Surveyors Forums

Does a Lot Line Adjustment approved by the local agency "create" the parcels that result from them? I believe, yes as the parcels have never previously existed in their newly adjusted configurations. I'm working with a local jurisdiction that believes no. Per the letter received from the Director of Planning, "Lot Line Adjustments do not legally "create" parcels, either in 2006 or today. Consequently, the fact that a particular configuration was described in a previous LLA does not necessarily mean that each of those parcels is legally recognizable for purposes of sale, lease or finance under the Map Act."

Here's some background:
1) In 2005 my clients acquire title of a single APN described as Lot X and Lot Y of that “Antiquated Mapâ€￾ recorded 1893.
2)In 2006 the County approved a Lot Line Adjustment/Merger application and records the Certificate of Lot Line Adjustment/Merger that effectively moves the common line (easterly line of X, westerly line of Y). The recorded certificate contains new, complete legal descriptions of resultant X and resultant Y.
3)Subsequent to the approval and recording of the LLA/Mer certificate, the owners obtain a mortgage on the resultant parcel X. The county issues a building permit, well permit and septic permit on the resultant parcel X. Resultant parcel Y is still vacant. Both parcels front on county roads, and comply with current general plan and zoning ordinance.
4)The resultant parcel X had an existing single family residence. The new permits were for a second single family residence on the same parcel.
5)Owner’s need to get out from under a big mortgage by selling the newly constructed residence, and wish to do another LLA to move the common line that was previously adjusted over 7 years ago, so that each parcel has one residence.
6) A lot line adjustment/merger application was submitted and accepted as complete by the county. The county, after a 2.5 month review by their county counsel, determined a chain of title back to 1893 is necessary to prove they have legal parcels to lot line adjust.

While creation deed verification for ministerial applications is appropriate on lots purported to be created, or currently described, solely by reference to an antiquated map, I believe the time for legal parcel review has passed in this instance. The county has already approved a LLA without previously requiring creation deeds or a chain of title. If that was an error or not is irrelevant, the current facts are: 1) The county has approved and recorded a Certificate of Lot Line Adjustment/Merger; 2) A mortgage was acquired on resultant parcel X; 3) The County issued development permits on resultant parcel X, thereby acknowledging it is legal for development. I contend that the legal creator of the parcels as they are currently described is the recorded Lot Line Adjustment / Merger Certificate approved and recorded by the county. Any chain of title older than the 2006 approval will not disclose the currently described parcels as they did not exist in their current configuration prior to the 2006 LLA / Mer recording.

If creation deeds cannot be provided, the County has generously offered that the owner can submit, and pay additional fees for, a certificate of compliance application. However, this opens the owners up to conditions of approval as they would have existed in 2005 for parcel creation (the county was not able to tell us what those may be, if any). I did ask the county, and they declined to respond, if creation deeds cannot be provided and the county deems these parcels as not created in conformance with local ordinance and state law, are they going to file a Notice of Violation, as required by the Map Act, on the parcels that are a result of their previous approvals.

I would appreciate any advice, wisdom, precedents, citations, experiences that may help me present a case to support my position that these are legal parcels for sale, lease and finance and no further creation review is needed. Or, maybe I'm just missing something here and I would appreciate a different perspective to help clarify why a local agency, and land owners, cannot rely on previous ministerial approvals.

Thanks for your help.

Question: Did the owners record quitclaim deeds perfecting the Lot Line Adjustment as required in Section 66412(d), "The lot line adjustment shall be reflected in a deed, which shall be recorded."

If not, did the trust deed for the mortgage reference the legal descriptions in the LLA certificate or the parcels from the LLA certificate? If so, that might clear the requirement above. If not, then the LLA was never perfected and you might have a problem.

No deeds from owners to themselves were provided by title company,so my assumption is no. Yes, the deed of trust did use the description for resultant parcel X only.

The certificate recorded contains the following statement signed by the planning director: "Notice is hereby given that pursuant to Section 66412(d) of the California Government Code, the (county) Planning Department has determined the following described parcels are a result of Lot Line Adjustment #06-xy. Also pursuant to Section 66451.31 of the California Government Code the real property owned by (owner's names) was merged in the following described parcels for the purpose of land division and issuance of building permits or other public agency approvals."

County Code does have a section addressing Voluntary Mergers. I am unclear if that section existed in 2006, as the footnote does show an ordinance adopted in 2013. The current lot line adjustment application requirements include a consent to merger form the owners must sign.

The county cert wording clearly acknowledges the resulting parcels but seems to be missing the words that clearly say these are legal parcels in the eyes of the county (created in compliance with subdivision regs and county ordinances). That's the whole point of the county LLA process, right?) Is there some reason the property owners can't record the Section 66412(d) required deeds today? That would solve the problem, no? The bank shouldn't care as the descriptions are in conformance with the loan description. Actually, the bank should like it that all records are now in sync.
Chris

A LLA does NOT create lots, which is why it is an exception to the SMA. However, the approval of a LLA by the local jurisdiction has the same effect as a Certificate of Compliance for each lot affected by the LLA once the LLA is completed.

BUT... with both lots being under common ownership, and no deeds having been exchanged to complete the LLA, the LLA did not actually occur. Approval is only permission to execute the LLA, it is not the LLA itself. Most jurisdictions that I know of have an expiration date on LLA approvals so that they aren't hanging around only to be finally executed after zoning may have changed, or after someone at the county realizes that maybe they shouldn't have approved it in the first place.

Because of the title issues of conveying land to oneself, El Dorado County has 1-party LLAs reflected on Parcel Maps (no conditions beyond those allowed for a LLA, fees are same as LLA + std map review fee, not PM fees). That process keeps it simple as an LLA is meant to be, but also has the effect of recreating the lots involved without having to file deeds.

If no deeds filed, and no PM filed, your clients are out of luck. Whoever helped them with the LLA in 2006 should have advised them that approval does not complete the LLA and has absolutely no effect unless they execute deeds or have a PM filed to reflect the adjusted lots.

Sorry to hijack this thread, but I have a question for Evan. When you file a LLA Parcel Map in El Dorado County, do they require you to set monuments for the new lot lines?

Back to our regularly scheduled programming - It would be interesting to know why the County is fighting this LLA. Is there a zoning code issue?

A simple way to remember it is a LLA is like a tentative map, it allows the parcels to be created in the newly defined configuration. Recording the deeds to actually create the new deed lines is like recording the final map. The latter process actually creates.

I have seen this happen...

Large commercial parcel, strip center, consisting of two legal parcels, for convenience Parcel A & B.

Owner wants to adjust parcel lines to accommodate a sale of one of the parcels so a new building can be built on it.

County approves LLA.

Owner Deeds Parcel A to another entity using the new description.

Owner keeps Parcel B. Look up the vesting deed for Parcel B, old description of both parcels. Hopefully some day when it transfers it will use the new description but will it be legal if the LLA has expired?

The LLA process is stupid. Glad I don't have to deal with it anymore.

dedkad wrote:Sorry to hijack this thread, but I have a question for Evan. When you file a LLA Parcel Map in El Dorado County, do they require you to set monuments for the new lot lines?

Back to our regularly scheduled programming - It would be interesting to know why the County is fighting this LLA. Is there a zoning code issue?

I need to add some qualifiers. If the LLA is based on field surveyed info (i.e. located a building and moved lines to accommodate it), then RS trigger 8762(b)(4) (establishing points or lines not shown on a previous record map) is pretty much automatic. If it's a multi-party LLA, show it on a RS and exchange deeds. If it's a 1-party LLA, show it on a PM. What monuments you set, if any, would depend upon what monuments are existing and the configuration of the moved lines.

If the LLA is being done without having to make any field measurements, no map is required. If I recall correctly, for a 1-party LLA, you have the option of filing a record data PM or filing Certificates of Compliance to fully execute it.

The lack of LLA deeds could/should be an issue, but its not an issue the County has raised. If deeds didn't record so the LLA has expired would be a good scenario for my client as they desire to put the property back to nearly how it was prior to the 2006 approvals.

I requested a detailed explanation as to why creation deeds are required. The minimal, verbal explanation I did receive from the project planner centered around antiquated subdivision maps and Witt Home Ranch vs. County of Sonoma (addressed a 1915 map's authority to create or just describe). County Counsel won't confer with me directly, they are the county's attorney. And the written response from the Director of Planning never addressed the issue as to why.

The first LLA was approved in 2006, Witt Home Ranch was published in 2008. I believe the county is now reviewing ministerial applications for legal creation, and rightly so. But that review should not go beyond their previous approvals.

Evan touched on a specific point, "the approval of a LLA by the local jurisdiction has the same effect as a Certificate of Compliance." This is the position that I've expressed to the county and have been trying to find back up in code, precedents, text, etc.

Thanks for the open discussion and help with this!

The approval only has that effect if the landowners have completed the LLA. Without the deeds, there was no transfer of property and the approved act never occurred. So it's as if the Certificate of Complaince was filled out, but never signed.

There needs to be some mechanism to transfer title of property to reflect the moved lines. If there was no transfer, then the LLA never happened. If the approval expired, then it is as if it never happened either.

If your client's lots have always been conveyed together, then your client has only one parcel. If they had been transferred separately at any point in the chain of title, then they have two parcels. Those parcels are in whatever configuration they were in when your client's bought them in 2005.

The recording of the deeds describing the new lines create the new lots.

Back in the early 60's some ordinance was passed in LA County prohibiting the creation of deed cut lots. In 1972 it went state wide, but that's another story.

Anyway, the incorporated cities really did not know how to deal with this so, taking Glendale as an example, they came up with the LSM (Lot Split Map).

An RE or an LS was retained. Monuments may have been set. A map 18" x 26" was drawn up and submitted to the zoning department for approval.

Fees were paid. The map was checked for format and accuracy and it was signed off and approved.

Sound like a closed case...Right?

Well in many of these LSM cases, even though improvements were built to new the LSM lines, the LSM was NOT recognized as a new legal line because no one bothered to push the need that deeds needed to be recorded that would create the parcels the LSM map showed.

Paul

Did the city issue Certificates of Compliance to legalize these parcels created by the LSM after a building permit was issued and occupancy granted?

SMA 66499.35(c) - A COC shall be issued for any real property that has been approved for development (i.e. issued and approved occupancy under a building permit) pursuant to 66499.34

I do not know. I was lucky at times just to get a copy of the LSM.

The LSM's were never filed with the county recorder just indexed in the city records.

what about this ...

October 1, 2014

Dear County Planning Department:

Your department has issued permits and entitlements authorizing the development of the property located at 1234 Main Street. Attached is a listing of these permits and entitlements. Please review and confirm their validity. Assuming my representation that the County indeed issued these permits and entitlements and that the owners completed various improvements to their property in reliance thereto, then this constitutes "real property which has been approved for development" per California Governement Code Section 66499.34. The County is obligated by that statute to issue a Certificate of Compliance for this property. Please consider this letter a request to issue said certificate and let me know when it is ready for me to pick up. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Best Regards,

MM