California Surveyors Forums

Joe owns the Remainder Parcel of a Parcel Map filed in 1999. Joe was 1 of 4 signers of the Development Company that did the Parcel Map back in 1999. Now Joe wants to split his Remainder Parcel into 4 Parcels. I'm pretty sure we need to do a Final Map in order to split the Remainder, or do I need to find out what percentage of ownership Joe had in the original development company???

Thanks in advance for any insight.

Final Map. Joe was one of the original owners, percentage does not matter.

Interesting. What is the reference?

A title report should be sufficient. Presumably, the other co-owners (Joint Tenants?) quitclaimed their interest.

[edit]

Oh, I see, the question is parcel map or final map.

Four lots - sounds like a parcel map. SMA section 66421.1 covers this.

This is the Bright case that prevents 4 x 4 ing. I agree that a final map is required.

I could be completely off base, but the way I read the question is that Joe, and his partners in interest, split his property into four parcels with a remainder with a Parcel Map in 1999. Now, in 2015, Joe wants to further subdivide the Remainder Parcel. That would trigger a Final Map. First four parcels, Parcel Map. Parcel 5 through xxx, Final Map.

jbaker wrote:I could be completely off base, but the way I read the question is that Joe, and his partners in interest, split his property into four parcels with a remainder with a Parcel Map in 1999. Now, in 2015, Joe wants to further subdivide the Remainder Parcel. That would trigger a Final Map. First four parcels, Parcel Map. Parcel 5 through xxx, Final Map.

jbaker, you understand the question, and I agree with your answer. But I wanted a few other opinions. I'm worried that Joe's percentage of ownership in 1999 may change things, and I would hate to be the one to require a Final Map, when a Parcel Map would suffice.

Warren Smith wrote:...Oh, I see, the question is parcel map or final map. Four lots - sounds like a parcel map. SMA section 66421.1 covers this.

Warren, SMA section 66421 doesn't have a .1 is that a typo?

Thanks again all!!

The Bright case was decided in 1977. The legislature enacted SMA section 66424.1 in 1986. It seems to address the issue of "quartering". However, Mike Durkee posits that it is intended to benefit third party purchasers who acquired title at "arm's length" from the original subdivider, in order to remove the appearance of collusion to circumvent the Map Act.

Yes, Robert, I fat-fingered the original reply ...

Thank Warren. In this case, since Joe was a partner in the original subdivision, doesn't that mean that there was NOT an "arms length" transaction? Therefore, is a Final Map is required? The zoning is Limited Industrial, Thanks again.

There is SMA 66426 (c) which provides for the filing of a parcel map for any number of parcels which are zoned for industrial or commercial development, and has approved access to a public highway.

It seems onerous to seek the imposition of a final map in this case. Is there a bright line statute that I am overlooking which requires it?

Thank you Warren, SMA 66426 (c) is exactly what I was looking for.

Warren Smith wrote:Is there a bright line statute that I am overlooking which requires it?

Charge More Fees!

Anthony,

That's an interesting point. While parcel maps once were substantially cheaper and quicker to process, it can be a pretty close match in some cases now. If there are deferred improvements, a subdivision agreement is hammered out, and the parcel map goes to our Board of Supervisors for approval. It also requires Board action to accept the improvements and reduce the performance bond to a warranty level. Ordinances codified in our Development Code mandate all this.

IIRC parcel maps had significantly different impact and development fees than final maps in jurisdictions I used to work with before the great recession. Of course, fee structures are determined locally. San Joaquin County fees will differ from San Jose / Hayward / San Francisco.