California Surveyors Forums

I have a four parcel lot line adjustment going on, which is going to also include the creation of several easements across the adjusted parcel lines.

Because of the complexity, we are working with our local City to process the LLA via recorded Parcel Map.

This is a Lot Line Adjustment, not a subdivision, and because so it seems that many of the signatures normally required for a Parcel Map would be omitted in this case, such as:

1. County Tax Collector's Certificate;
2. County Clerk's Certificate - SMA 66493;
3. City Tax and Assessment Certificate;
4. Record Easement Holders - SMA 66436.

What say the voices in the Universe? I could use some help here.

I am only trying to effectuate the lot line adjustment via parcel map in lieu of a stack of grand deeds that the title company will record out of sequence and screw the whole thing up anyway.

Please advise.

It would seem that if you are going to finish the LLA with a parcel map, that you should have the standard statements. I am fairly certain that the property taxes have to be paid, or bonded, before the LLA could record. The easements as well. I have been a firm believer in finishing the LLA as a Parcel Map for many years and I believe that it should be required rather than the convoluted process that we go through now. The parcel map actually involves surveying and you can set the corners, what a novel concept.

Absolutely mandatory. If you're going to use the parcel map process, you're subject to those 4 required elements. There are no provisions excepting those required elements from the parcel map process nor can the locall agency supercede them.

Ok, but this is not a subdivision of lands.
What SMA sections govern what I am trying to do?

Does recording a parcel map in lieu of the standard LLA procedure subject the owner of the parcels to re-assessment?

LS_8750 wrote:Ok, but this is not a subdivision of lands.

The parcel map process by definition consists of a merger of all parcels into one, with that parcel then being divided into however many resultant parcels desired. Simply because you decide to create the same number of parcels as you started with prior to merger doesn't somehow change the statute requirements for the parcel map process.

Ok, so according to your logic with the Parcel Map option I am not subdividing lands, but I am creating parcels out of existent parcels, no subdividing of lands is occurring.

Am I creating parcels, or am I just re-arranging existent parcels? The logical conclusion is that I started with four parcels and I end with four parcels. I am not creating anything that doesn't already exist.

I am not concerned with merging any potential underlying parcels. I already went through a rather arduous process getting a certificate of compliance approved for this job, which led me to the four parcel LLA.

Does my client incur additional tax burden following this Parcel Map procedure in lieu of the conventional LLA approach with the exchange of lands via grant deed? Or not?

Why do we need tax collector signatures if we are simply conducting a lot line adjustment?

In San Diego, we permit the Parcel Map to be used to effectuate a lot line adjustment. I am a member of the committee that wrote the applicable provisions. Take a look at the attached and see if it helps.

https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/ ... manual.pdf

LS_8750 wrote:Ok, so according to your logic with the Parcel Map option I am not subdividing lands, but I am creating parcels out of existent parcels, no subdividing of lands is occurring.

A parcel map does divide lands, i.e. it creates new parcels from the merger resultant. Create and divide are synonymous here.

LS_8750 wrote:Am I creating parcels, or am I just re-arranging existent parcels? The logical conclusion is that I started with four parcels and I end with four parcels. I am not creating anything that doesn't already exist.

A parcel map creates new parcels. Just because you want to divide the merged resultant into the same number of parcels as you had prior to the merger does not redefine the statutory requirements nor the legal definition of the parcel map law/process.

LS_8750 wrote:I am not concerned with merging any potential underlying parcels. I already went through a rather arduous process getting a certificate of compliance approved for this job, which led me to the four parcel LLA.

You may not be concerned with it, but that is the legal definition of a parcel map. It merges and then divides (creates).

LS_8750 wrote:Does my client incur additional tax burden following this Parcel Map procedure in lieu of the conventional LLA approach with the exchange of lands via grant deed? Or not?

You should have a discussion with your county assessor on this. I will reserve my opinion on it for now.

LS_8750 wrote:Why do we need tax collector signatures if we are simply conducting a lot line adjustment?

The tax collector signature acknowledges all taxes are paid. Most agencies I deal with require tax collector sign off on LLA's also.

Mr. Pallamary, could you forward to me an example four parcel LLA effectuated through use of a parcel map? I note in the SD Manual you posted that grant deeds still need to be recorded. Grant of easements still need to be recorded as well then I presume. The parcel map is not a creation document then? What is the parcel map good for then? Besides merging underlying parcels?

Mr. Magee, thank you for hammering the merger component of the parcel map route. I've gone down that road before.

Two cities I have dealt with REQUIRED a PM for a LLA and a LLO.

Follow the money. More fees to the local agency for a PM.

Will do.

Good luck!

Mr. Pallamary, the example posted brings me back to my original post. The example omits the four statements that I referred to above, which leads me to think that no tax re-assessment would take place - because it is a lot line adjustment and nothing is created but rather reconfigured.

Does this example comply with the City of San Diego Manual you posted?

I’m going to call a flag on the play.

I do agree that a Parcel Map is the best available method for preparing and documenting a Lot Line Adjustment. Having said that, the ONLY reference to a Parcel Map to be found in the 253 words of §66412(d) specifically and emphatically state that “…[n]o…parcel map…shall be required…”

As to Clarke’s original post in which he lists the certificates, not one of them are REQUIRED on a Parcel Map. What? No! Yes. It’s true.

The certificate requirements for Parcel Maps are found in §66445(e) – the “Owner’s Statement”; §66445(j) – notation of each easement being abandoned; §66449 – the “Surveyor’s Statement”; §66450 – the City of County Surveyor’s Statement; and, §66449 the Recorder’s Statement.

The tax certificates required under §66492 and §66493 are filed with the County Recorder. They do not have to be filed on the map. Yup. Those certificates don't even have to be referenced on the map. Yup. Re-read those sections. Go ahead. I'll wait.

The Record Easement Holder Notation is required ONLY if the easements are being abandoned. Any easements that will remain in effect should be shown.

All those other statements, such as the City Attorney’s Statement, the Parks and Recreation District Statement, etc., they’re not allowed on the map. §66445(g) specifically forbids such statements on the map unless the statement “…affect[s] record title interests…”

Wild, isn't it. We've been told for years that we need all of those certificates on the map. Nope. Not quite true. However, as one City Attorney said to me when I tried to push back over changes to the wording of the Surveyor's Statement and others changes..."So? Sue us."

I would love to see some sort of legislation that would create a simplified version of the Parcel Map to be used for Lot Line Adjustments. As long as it contains the Owner’s Statement, as well as a Beneficiary’s Statement or Trustee’s Statement, if necessary, if would serve as constructive notice and be discoverable in the chain of title. The parcels could be described by reference to the map instead of a potentially convoluted description. The adjusted parcels would be shown in their positions relative to surrounding parcels, in their “native habitat”.

The issues surrounding the use of this sort of map are the fees which the agencies could/would begin to collect; the conditions that agencies would try to place on the maps; and the other exactions that could come along with the Parcel Adjustment Map.

Until we have such legislation, the seven sentences of §66412(d), with all 253 words, still rule the day.

Ian

Here is another example of a LLA on a PM. I did this one in San Marcos. We did not have to get any tax clearance but they did want signature omissions shown as well as the other standard statements from a PM.

If the agency is requiring that the PM be filed to reflect a LLA, then Ian is 100% correct. On everything else, he is also correct and that's how it would apply if the PM map form was being used as the most convenient and expedient way of accomplishing the LLA. When that is done, the PM full PM process is not followed. The normal conditions placed on a PM can't be placed on a PM to reflect an LLA.

It IS NOT a merger and redivision of the lands as W. Magee suggests. If you are ending up with the same number of parcels, you are still only moving lines around, not creating new divisions. It is defined so in 66412(d). Without that statute, Magee would be correct. But since we do have that statute, he's not.

66412(d) says that no PM or RS can be required as a condition of approving an LLA, but....

... if you have performed a field survey to determine where/how to place the reconfigured lines, then you will have triggered 8762(b)(5), and possibly other parts of 8762(b), and will be required to file an RS under that statute.

But a RS does not provide constructive notice, and may or may not show up in a future title search. So if the local agency will allow a PM without the further conditions & exactions that come with the PM process, and if they will allow filing a PM at the same cost as filing a RS, then that seems like the best map form by which to get it done.

if you choose a process, your stuck with the rules of that process, no shortcuts. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck......

JMS8070 wrote:Here is another example of a LLA on a PM. I did this one in San Marcos. We did not have to get any tax clearance but they did want signature omissions shown as well as the other standard statements from a PM.

Exactly what is required in my jurisdiction. We charge the same to process a LLA by agreement as we do a LLA by PM. Where I run into trouble in convincing an applicant that this is the best process is that the PM's typically trigger setting of monuments. The monuments, tax bond, and recording fees are where the additional cost to the applicant comes in. If there are easements that need to be dedicated, then those costs are offset in that they don't have to pay the surveyor to prepare separate legal descriptions.

Back to this four parcel LLA, and recording a parcel map to effectuate the LLA.

The same owner has title to all four parcels, under two different trusts. If that owner put all lands into one trust and then recorded the parcel map, would we need to record grant deeds for the transfer of property, or would the recorded parcel map function as the creation document effectuating the new configuration of each of the parcels?

In addition, we have a new road and utility easement shown on the parcel map, which will be used by future owners of the four parcels.

See where I am going with this?

LS_8750 wrote:.....The same owner has title to all four parcels, under two different trusts. If that owner put all lands into one trust and then recorded the parcel map, would we need to record grant deeds for the transfer of property, or would the recorded parcel map function as the creation document effectuating the new configuration of each of the parcels?

The latter, providing of course that you and the county actually followed the parcel map process.

LS_8750 wrote: In addition, we have a new road and utility easement shown on the parcel map, which will be used by future owners of the four parcels.

The (assuming private) easements would need to be created as part of the transfer documents recorded when one of the effected parcels is first transferred to different, separate owner. See Civil Code Sections 805 & 811:

805 A servitude thereon cannot be held by the owner of the servient tenement.

811. A servitude is extinguished:

1. By the vesting of the right to the servitude and the right to the servient tenement in the same person;

IMO, this is one of the benefits of using a Parcel Map to effect the LLA. The parcel spring into being the moment the map is recorded (§66412.7).

As long as the beneficiary or trustee has also signed the Map, there won’t likely be a problem with foreclosures or other difficulties.

The deeds and trust deeds should be reformed, but I don’t see where not doing this until conveyance is a problem.

As far as the PUE and other Public Easements, they spring into effect the moment the map records, too.

It’s a much better way of performing Lot Line Adjustments. Unfortunately, it is NOT the method established under 66412(d) of the SMA.

If it were possible to create a Parcel Map – like document that would have a set of review restrictions in place in the same manner and magnitude of the current LLA statute, I would be highly in favor of that process. Perhaps, creating something that remains in §66412 but still functions like the Parcel Map would be the way to go.

The exemptions are what drive the Permit Streamlining, CEQA exemptions and the help establish the ministerial function of the LLA. Perhaps…a Parcel Line Adjustment Map?

Ian

Ian Wilson wrote:IMO, this is one of the benefits of using a Parcel Map to effect the LLA. The parcel spring into being the moment the map is recorded (§66412.7).

As long as the beneficiary or trustee has also signed the Map, there won’t likely be a problem with foreclosures or other difficulties.

The deeds and trust deeds should be reformed, but I don’t see where not doing this until conveyance is a problem.

As far as the PUE and other Public Easements, they spring into effect the moment the map records, too.

It’s a much better way of performing Lot Line Adjustments. Unfortunately, it is NOT the method established under 66412(d) of the SMA.

If it were possible to create a Parcel Map – like document that would have a set of review restrictions in place in the same manner and magnitude of the current LLA statute, I would be highly in favor of that process. Perhaps, creating something that remains in §66412 but still functions like the Parcel Map would be the way to go.

The exemptions are what drive the Permit Streamlining, CEQA exemptions and the help establish the ministerial function of the LLA. Perhaps…a Parcel Line Adjustment Map?

Ian

Are you suggesting a 'PLAM'?

Well, sort of. I think it should be administered by the Department of Housing. Then, we could tag it as a PLA-DoH Map.

"The same owner has title to all four parcels, under two different trusts. If that owner put all lands into one trust and then recorded the parcel map, would we need to record grant deeds for the transfer of property, or would the recorded parcel map function as the creation document effectuating the new configuration of each of the parcels?

In addition, we have a new road and utility easement shown on the parcel map, which will be used by future owners of the four parcels. "

From what I understand, and please someone correct me if any of the following is incorrect:

The Parcel Map (and Certificate of Compliance for a LLA) only creates the "opportunity" for the parcels to be sold in that configuration. It is not until an actual conveyance occurs that the parcels are actually created . SMA 66412.7 says that the "subdivision shall be deemed established for purposes of subdivision" when it records. That is why grant deeds need to be recorded conveying title to the newly created (or adjusted) parcels. If only one owner owns all four parcels of a lot line adjustment, then no grant deeds need to take place until that owner conveys to another party. If any easements are shown and their purpose clearly delineated on the newly filed Parcel Map then any parcel conveyed using as the description "Parcel 1 of Parcel Map..." would benefit or be encumbered by the easements shown on the map. Any prior easements that are not shown on the newly filed Parcel Map are extinguished (as long as the person or entity that controls that easement has agreed to the recordation of the map by affixing their signature).

I agree that the Parcel Map is a clean way to describe a piece of property but I also like preparing the legal descriptions for the Lot LIne Adjustments because it keeps us in practice. Otherwise, I don't prepare that many descriptions.

From my experience, each County and City has a slightly (or sometimes not so slightly) different way of handling a lot line adjustment. The easiest way in my opinion is to work with them as much as you can bear and fight only when necessary.

kwilson wrote:....
....The Parcel Map (and Certificate of Compliance for a LLA) only creates the "opportunity" for the parcels to be sold in that configuration. It is not until an actual conveyance occurs that the parcels are actually created . SMA 66412.7 says that the "subdivision shall be deemed established for purposes of subdivision" when it records. That is why grant deeds need to be recorded conveying title to the newly created (or adjusted) parcels. If only one owner owns all four parcels of a lot line adjustment, then no grant deeds need to take place until that owner conveys to another party. If any easements are shown and their purpose clearly delineated on the newly filed Parcel Map then any parcel conveyed using as the description "Parcel 1 of Parcel Map..." would benefit or be encumbered by the easements shown on the map. Any prior easements that are not shown on the newly filed Parcel Map are extinguished (as long as the person or entity that controls that easement has agreed to the recordation of the map by affixing their signature.....

I have to take exception to some of the above statements. I have, on multiple occasions, created parcel maps for individuals who wanted a 2nd house on their land but were denied because the agency wouldn't allow a 2nd home on a single lot. They then pursued a parcel map to create a 2nd lot for the desired 2nd home. The minute the parcel map was created the agency then was able to issue building permits for the home. No conveyance had occurred but the agency determined that once the parcel map recorded, the parcel map had then created 2 separate legal parcels and a building permit could then be issued. Again, no conveyance required.
Also, using the kwilson line of thinking, wouldn't creation upon conveyance mean sequential creation with the implication of junior-senior rights. We all know that parcel maps create parcels simultaneously, not sequentially when the parcels are sold off.

Lastly I would add that only public easements are extinguished by the recording of parcel maps. Private easements have to be quit-claimed by separate action in order to be extinguished unless the servient and dominant tenements are one and the same as happens during the instantaneous merger during the parcel map process where multiple owners are involved. In that case they automatically extinguish but that type of automatic extinguishment may slip through latter title searches.