California Surveyors Forums

A client of mine would like to obtain fee title to the city right of way outlined in red as shown on the attached file. My client owns lot 9 of the adjacent subdivision. This is a situation where my client is the only one who could practically use the parcel that the city wants to quitclaim, but my client's lot was created by an adjacent subdivision. The subdivisions were done 25 years apart and had different owners. What chain of events would need to happen in order for my client to obtain fee title to this parcel? The streets were NOT dedicated to the city in fee, just a normal right of way dedication in the owner's statement.

Your input would be very much appreciated.

There is a statutory procedure. I'll post it tomorrow morning when I get back to the office.

This is a resolution we put together making the necessary findings to result in the sale of a remnant parcel acquired in fee. The adjacent landowner was the only practical user of the parcel.

Upon quick review it appears to need a 2 step process. First the city's R/W easement needs to be abandoned over that parcel, then the underlying fee owner will need to sell the parcel to your friend through a lot line adjustment process. The abandonment does not create a separate parcel but rather just removes the city's encumbrance over it, You might be able to get the lot line adjustment and abandonment to be processed concurrently with the city, also tieing the entire deal into an escrow account through a title company.

Unfortunately the city did not acquire the portion in question in fee, so it is not a remnant parcel. Rather it was dedicated as part of the road right of way. Who has fee title to the area in question? The original subdivider from 1965, or a combination of the current owners of lots 1 and 2, and possibly even lot 3?

Ah, I see now. Lot 1 would own fee to the centerline as shown, so a vacation would remove the public right of way but would not, as pointed out, create a separate lot. A lot line adjustment would be in order then between owners of lots in adjacent subdivisions.

I think the arguement could be made that the majority of the underlying fee is held by Lot 2 and a small sliver held by Lot 3. Consider the lot line between 2 and 3 extended to the edge of subdivision, i.e. east edge of right of way. While Lot 1's sideline would extend to the centerline where it opposes Lot 3. I don't believe Lot 1 has any claim to the triangle.

At first blush, Lot 1 gets everything. Do you have the description of the exterior of the subdivision before it was platted? It appears the strip is what we call a marginal street; it is at the exterior of the tract. Check the status of title and ownership before the map recorded. It looks like the adjacent tracts were in place under separate ownership and as such, have no rights whatsoever in land outside their tract. Once vacated, as it appears part of the road dedication per the underlying map, you can do as Warren suggests.

I do not believe lots 2 and 3 have any business going beyond the centerline.

Lots 1,2,3 would take their proportional part of the right of way that they front upon to the half-width of the street in case of abandonment of the street right of way subject to private easement rights and rights reserved for utilities. There is no lot opposite of lot 2 . the roadway easement appears to cover an unidentified parcel. Unless the map makes provision for this parcel, I suspect that ownership resides with subdivider. Obtain a grant deed from the subdivider. This could be a case of unknown fee ownership. The safest thing to do would be to obtain quitclaims deeds from the owners of lots 1,2,3 and file a quite title action to barr action from an unknown fee owner.

So far, the only consensus you've received is that your client has no rights to the area. Whether that area, once abandoned by City belongs to Lots 1, 2 or 3 appears to be a matter of argument. DMI's suggestion seems to be the process that would best protect your client, but each one of those lot owners will probably have their hand out wanting something in return for "giving up" something they never knew they possibly had rights to to begin with.

Thanks for posting about this. It gives us all something to think about when laying out subdivisions and what the impacts may be in the future. Maybe a fee parcel to the City would have resolved this issue. Then the City could have sold or traded it in the future to whichever adjacent lot owner gave them the best deal, like was done in Warren's case that he posted about.

There is no division line shown on the map, so unless the map says so elsewhere, how can the triangle be anything other than part of Chanticleer Avenue? So the 30.80' course is Lot 1 street frontage. With the triangle being part of the east half of Chanticleer how can Lots 2 or 3 have any interest in the underlying fee? I think the centerline as drawn controls, and that Lot 3 would not get part of the triangle, even under different centerline scenarios. With different centerline scenarios Lot 2 would get part of the triangle.

Just an FYI - Chanticleer is just a straight, through road, no cul de sac was ever intended in this area.

PE_PLS: I was just trying to indicate what type of scenario might/would result in Lot 2 getting part of the subject triangle shaped area, meaning scenarios with a different centerline configuration.

It is clear from the highlighted plat, this is part of a dedicated street. This as an irregular marginal street. Tell your client to negotiate with the owner of Lot 1 to acquire the area by having him/her transfer their underlying interest by a quitclaim deed before it is vacated.

Go to a title company as they are in the risk business and ask for them to issue a litigation guarantee to insure the land. After a summary vacation in accordance with the streets and highway code, convert the prelim into a policy (now you are insured) and go forth and prosper.

I hope the attached cases provide some guidance.

One last comment extracted from the above:

It has been repeatedly stated, however, that an abutting owner has, in addition to a right enjoyed in common with the general public, certain private rights in the abutting street which arise from the ownership of property contiguous to the street, whether or not he owns the underlying fee. ( Lane v. San Diego Elec. Ry. Co., 208 Cal. 29, 33 [280 P. 109]; Fairchild v. Oakland & Bay Shore Ry. Co., 176 Cal. 629 [169 P. 388]; People ex rel. Dept. Public Works v. Giumarra Vineyards Corp. 245 Cal.App.2d 309, 315 [53 Cal.Rptr. 902]; 10 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, § 30.54.) The rule has been evolved by judicial decisions but its precise origin is obscure. ( Bacich v. Board of Control, 23 Cal.2d 343, 350 [144 P.2d 818].) Damages resulting from substantial interference with such rights of the abutting owner, whether by construction of public improvements ( Bacich v. Board of Control, supra; People v. Ricciardi, 23 Cal.2d 390 [144 P.2d 799]; Rose v. State of California, 19 Cal.2d 713, 727-728 [123 P.2d 505]) or by vacation or abandonment of the street ( Phillips v. City of Pasadena, 27 Cal.2d 104, 106-107 [162 P.2d 625]; Simpson v. City of Los Angeles, 4 Cal.2d 60, 65-66 [47 P.2d 474]; Cramer v. County of Los Angeles, 96 Cal.App.2d 255, 256 [215 P.2d 497]; Constantine v. City of Sunnyvale, 91 Cal.App.2d 278, 284 [204 P.2d 922]), are compensable. Compensability of damages occasioned by such interference with the abutting owner's rights extends both to public roads in unincorporated territory ( Valenta v. County of Los Angeles, 61 Cal.2d 669 [39 Cal.Rptr. 909, 394 P.2d 725]) as well as to streets in incorporated territory ( Breidert v. Southern Pac. Co., 61 Cal.2d 659 [39 Cal.Rptr. 903, 394 P.2d 719]). In Valenta supra, at p. 672, the court abolished as indefensible the distinction in this respect between city streets and county roads and disapproved dicta to the contrary in Levee Dist. No. 9 v. Farmer, 101 Cal. 178 [35 P. 569, 23 L.R.A. 388], and Swift v. Board of Supervisors, 16 Cal.App. 72 [116 P. 317], where the court held that an abutting owner is not entitled to injunctive relief against a proposed abandonment of a county road. Valenta disapproved the language in those cases to the effect that an abutting owner could not recover damages for loss of access to a county road as distinguished from a city street.

The board of supervisors is empowered to abandon a county road by following the prescribed statutory procedure. (Sts. & Hy. Code, §§ 956.8- 960; County of San Diego v. California Water etc. Co., 30 Cal.2d 817, 822 [186 P.2d 124, 175 A.L.R. 747]; Cramer v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 96 Cal.App.2d 255.) Upon abandonment, if the county owns only an easement, title to the easement reverts to the owners of the underlying fee free of the public easement, except to the extent reserved in the order of abandonment. (Sts. & Hy. Code, § 960.) In the instant case there is no suggestion that the board of supervisors failed to follow the statutory procedure or that there was collusive fraud. Any claim for alleged damages occasioned by the abandonment of the road should, therefore, have been presented to the county rather than defendants. We express no opinion whether such a claim, had one been timely filed, could have been validly asserted by plaintiffs or their predecessor in interest.