California Surveyors Forums

I have an interesting situation, that I am hoping that the assembled minds can help me with.

2014 - a Subdivision records, dedicates pieces of the land to the City for Road purposes. No issues here.

2016 - an Amending Subdivision records, changes the overall Map boundary, realigns the road dedications, and changes about half of the lots within the Subdivision.

The ownership of all lots within the Subdivision is the same, and the City has signed in all of the appropriate places abandoning and vacating as need to get this taken care of in reasonable fashion.

The question becomes: Is this legal, particularly in light of SMA 66469, particularly (f) as it may affect rights and title interest in lots and streets.

Thank you in advance for your attention, and I look forward to cll commentary.

Bruce Johnson
PLS 7845

Technically no. It should have been re-subdivided, but since it has been approved and signed and recorded by all parties, is it valid? Not sure.

If by subdivision and amended subdivision, you mean Final Map, the Amended Map will likely carry the day.

According to your scenario, the same owners are in place. The local agency has approved the map and approved the realignments, vacation, etc.

The purpose of the SMA and the process is to ensure orderly development of land.

Unless the new road alignment runs through an environmentally sensitive area, there are likely no changes to the effect of the Amended Map on the environment. Since no more lots are being created, it would be difficult to see how the amended map will increase the burden on utilities and services.

I’d say that the map will stand.

Should it have been done through a new subdivision process? Probably, but, other than generating additional fees, what would be the net difference?

As long as no state statutes are being violated, the local jurisdiction has the authority under its police powers.

Of course, the contrary may be shown.

Ian

We had a similar issue where we used an amending map to revise some lot lines and realign some easements using Section 66472.1 due to "changes in circumstances." In this case the changes in circumstances was that the developer's crappy product wasn't selling so they had to redesign their product line and it didn't fit on the lots that were created. I too was concerned about the legality, but our City Attorney's office said it was fine, so we went ahead and did it. I guess the definition of "right, title, and interest" is up for interpretation. At least we did the public hearing that is required per that section of the SMA.