Voluntary Lot Merger

walters · Post by **walters** » Thu May 05, 2016 10:32 am

The scenario: Two contiguous lots 14 & 15 recorded on a subdivision map in 1917 in the City of San Diego. Owner purchase said lots and received a building permit signed by the Building Department and the Planning and Zoning Department in late 1979. A topographic survey submitted to the City shows the house across the 2 lots and was signed by both departments. The legal description on said topo survey states lots 14 & 15 per subdivision map. There isn't any ordinance regarding lot mergers in the City Municipal Code in 1979, nor the SMA.
Would you consider this a Voluntary Lot Merger since the City's two departments signed the building permit and topographic survey 37 years ago?
Fast forward today, would you consider these lots as one or two lots in preparing a Lot Line Adjustment?
The lots today would be non-corforming.
The Assessor's Plat shown one parcel.
John L. Walters PLS

RAM · Post by **RAM** » Thu May 05, 2016 11:21 am

can it be shown a separate transfer of each lot, or have both lots always been transferred as one? i.e. grant deeds

walters · Post by **walters** » Thu May 05, 2016 12:29 pm

lots 14 &15 included in the grant deed...john

dedkad · Post by **dedkad** » Thu May 05, 2016 2:12 pm

I would not consider it a voluntary merger solely by approval of a building permit. Merger procedures would need to have been followed per SMA. In our city, we have instances where houses and buildings are across property lines. We recognize the existence of the lot line and if/when they ever come back in for a development permit, we have them correct the problem by a merger or LLA at that point.

hellsangle · Post by **hellsangle** » Thu May 05, 2016 2:13 pm

Guess the present-day question is this: does the city NOW have a merger ordinance? (SMA 66499.20.3)

Sonoma County Planning takes the view: the "actions by the owner" (of building a home over the line) merged the property. Therefore they might not grant Certificates of Compliance.

This being is a 1917 Subdivision . . . Gardner v Sonoma County hints at subdivisions without "review" before 1929 may be questionable. (1893 - pas!)

In Marin County - I had a client that wanted a building addition straddling his "other" legal parcel in a post-'72 subdivision. They made him go through Parcel Map Merger as a condition of approval. (We used to do Lot Line Adjustment to make line coincide with side parcel line - thereby merging the lots.) Gotta fund Govt! Now they have Voluntary Merger Ordinance.

Complex subject.

I highly recommend purchasing "SUBDIVISION MAP ACT MANUAL" available at Continuing Education of the Bar (Berkeley) for your library.

See B&P Code 8762.5. I've seen many metes/bounds Records of Survey where contiguous ownership applies . . . and the County Surveyor's Office allowed "parcel" lines to be surveyed and shown without C/Cs!!!

Good luck!

Phil - Sonoma

Mr. Smith · Post by **Mr. Smith** » Fri May 06, 2016 6:59 am

I have used Civil Code 1093 to justify
2 sole and separate lots.

Brian

dedkad · Post by **dedkad** » Fri May 06, 2016 9:21 am

Mr. Smith wrote:I have used Civil Code 1093 to justify
2 sole and separate lots.

Brian

People Brown v. Tehama County puts some limitations on CC 1093. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of- ... 26735.html

Mr. Smith · Post by **Mr. Smith** » Fri May 06, 2016 9:49 am

Every case is different, my current score with planning departments in (2) different jurisdictions
is 80-20 in favor of No Volunteer merger without express written intent.

Brian

California Surveyors Forums