PLS Act 8762.5

[pls7809]

I'm curious what the correct application of this section is?

8762.5. Record of survey - land division
No record of survey of land shown on the latest adopted county assessment roll as a unit or as contiguous units, which shows a division of such land into additional parcels, shall be filed with the county surveyor or with the county recorder, unless there is attached thereto a certificate by the county surveyor if the land lies within an unincorporated area, or a certificate by the city engineer if the land lies within a city, of compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410) of Title 7 of the Government Code, and any applicable local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto.

I am not sure that I am receiving the correct information from the reviewer about my map. I have submitted an RS of showing two parcels as described in a single deed. Parcel 1 is a metes and bounds description, excepting the southerly 250 feet. Then Parcel 2 of the same deed is the Southerly 250 feet (or what was excepted from Parcel 1). There is no certificate of compliance (as least not one picked up by the title report). But a (insert big box department store name) was built on the combined site in 2008.

The first check comments received back from the RS reviewer says I need to remove the line between the deed parcels (and any dimensions) because the line is not shown on the assessor maps. I show the outside boundary of the entire deed as a heavy solid line. The interior line between the two parcels is a dashed lighter line with bearings and distances shown.

I disagreed with that statement and the 2nd check comments say "...if there is a certificate of compliance per 8762.5, then I can keep the line shown. Nevertheless, you can keep the line in question provided you add a note explaining the line." They sent me a sheet of paper with a remark that says, "If a line doesn't show on the assessor (map) have the surveyor add this note...Note: This line is not a current line of ownership, and is shown for informational purposes only to clearly indicate elements in the legal description."

[subman]

In Los Angeles County, there was a period of time when property could be subdivided by filing a Record of Survey through the proper process including the addition of the appropriate certificates. I can post an example if needed.

[Warren Smith]

The last paragraph of section 66499.24 of the SMA may cover your site:

"The issuance of a permit or grant of approval for development of real property, or with respect to improvements that have been completed prior to the time a permit or grant of approval for development was required by local ordinances in effect at the time of the improvement, or with respect to improvements that have been completed in reliance upon a permit or grant of approval for development, shall constitute "real property which has been approved for development," for the purposes of subdivision (c) of Section 66499.35, and upon request by the person owning the real property or a vendee of such person pursuant to a contract of sale, the local agency shall issue a certificate of compliance for the affected real property."

In any event, a C of C would have to be issued. The building permit by itself only allows for that to happen.

I think I would go with the suggested note.

[pls7809]

I guess I shouldn't have added that side note. I have no problem with the note they are asking me to add. The problem I have is using an Assessor map to determine whether or not I can show a line on the RS. I'm not sure the section applies. Because a line is shown it doesn't mean the RS is showing a division of land. I clearly state that I'm showing Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 of the same deed. My primary question is are they applying that section correctly?

[Warren Smith]

Given that the County (or the City) Surveyor will be signing a Certificate of Compliance statement on the Record of Survey, it certainly is appropriate, and easily accomplished under the circumstances.

I misread the attempt to bypass that occurrence by means of the issuance of a building permit.

It's always interesting to see references to the latest secured Assessor's roll, when its own maps have a disclaimer that parcels shown are for assessment purposes, and do not constitute divisions of land. Differing tax rates, or special assessment district lines create innumerable tax parcels.

[Ric7308]

Did you survey the boundary of Parcel 1 and the boundary of Parcel 2? What if each parcel had a separate deed?

Whether or not a line is or is not shown on the Assessor's Map is a business decision made by the Assessor and does not have any bearing on what you are surveying. Just because the Assessor has chosen to not depict a line between two contiguous parcels under the same ownership doesn't mean you do not have the right to survey the boundaries of both parcels and depict those on a Record of Survey.

Would they have the same concerns/requirements if the two parcels from the same deed were not adjoining?

[E_Page]

"I show the outside boundary of the entire deed as a heavy solid line. The interior line between the two parcels is a dashed lighter line with bearings and distances shown."

I think that the way you showed it, and especially if you labeled each parcel with the deed reference (i.e. "Parcel One of 8765 OR 432" and "Parcel Two of 8765 OR 432"), is exactly what you should have done. That the map checker doesn't understand that seems to me to be an educational/experience issue on his part. Nevertheless, the note the map checker suggested is not incorrect and costs you nothing to add it, so as long as you have yet to send the mylar in, I'd just go ahead and do it.

I would however, attach a letter that explains that the manner in which you showed the two elements of the deed is standard mapping practice, adequate to clearly depict the two portions of the same description while clearly not showing them as separate legal divisions of land, and thus not bringing 8762.5 into play.

[Anthony Maffia]

When did this come about? When did we lose the "Assessor's maps are not proof of property lines"?

Contra Costa County and Alameda County tax assessors will delete lines between lines of parcels under common ownership at the owner's request, for taxing purposes only. They'll add them back in on request also, so what proof is this? I know of a property with over a dozen parcels that show on the tax map as one lot, but the lots were never merged, with ownership history developed over a hundred years.

Crazzzzzy