California Surveyors Forums

I'm preparing a Parcel Map of a 2 unit condominium to revise the airspace and deck area for a future addition to one of the units. It is basically a revision to the prior map, since they have no desire to go though the extra expense of doing a new condo plan. An attorney is involved and will update the CC & R's.

The consulting City Surveyor says that I need to remove the improvements from the Parcel Map. I'm showing the occupation of the fence line, the edge of pavement relative to the access easement that crosses the parcel or the portion of EP outside of our parcel, the existing deck, the existing condo unit, the addition to the condo unit and the new deck area. Is there anything within the subdivision map act that would preclude me from from showing these improvements?

I find monuments that agree with the 35 year old parcel map and the underlying ancient subdivision lot by less than 0.2 feet when calculating the geometric figure and holding the historically held center line monuments. After evaluating the monuments and understanding that it is common place to find lot corners missing the record dimensions by 0.3', I have held the monuments that I found and held the record parcel map dimensions from the closest corner to the missing corners. The City Surveyor says that is incorrect and I need to hold perpendicular from the street monuments and I should be going around the block. Mind you the rear corners that I find or establish from the PM are on line with a 2003 survey that found 2 old monuments that reestablished the rear lot line 150' feet away and the two surveys agree with in 0.3'. The original lots are hillside lots 50' or 60' x 150' and my PM's rear line, 110', is comprised of 2 old parcels. How much say does the City Surveyor have since they are signing the PM as being technically correct?



Thanks in advance for any comments about what I have done vs. what the City Surveyor is requiring.

Larry

Larry,

You could file a record of survey with the County showing all that, and then reference it for the parcel map boundary. That is, if time is no object ...

Hi Warren,

Time is very important for these folks. They have 3 children in one bedroom and I don't think any of the family members are very comfortable at the moment. All they to do is build their addition and live in harmony.

Also the ROS checking is taking 10 months in this County at the moment.

Do you know of anything that precludes you from showing occupation on a PM?

They also have requested me to entitle the map "Final Parcel Map". I have never heard of such a thing or seen such a thing. What is a Final Parcel Map?

No, I haven't. It should just be a parcel map for condominium purposes.
Showing occupation/evidentiary elements for boundary establishment purposes is appropriate for any map.

Larry,

I’m not sure why you need to create a new parcel map for condo purposes if one already exists. Why can't the CCR’s be updated to show the new condo plan as long as you don’t add more condo spaces than where originally approved? The parcel map designates the parcel for condo purpose and the condo plans in the CCR’s creates the airspaces. Now you will need to modify the deeds of trust and might need to inform the Bureau of Real Estate but not sure. In essence this is a form of a LLA. Also, see if 66427 (e) helps you. Now you might still want to file your record of survey but that’s up to you. I’m curious to see the outcome.

Joe

We already have approval of tentative.

you will need to provide airspace plans as part of the amended CC&Rs. This is a DRE matter and they will dictate what is required. Following Davis-Stirling is a must. I am on board with JoeC comments. In this case I do not see any use for a new PM unless you are re-configuring 2 separate legal parcels, i.e. 2 lot 2 unit condo map.

Larry they have plenty of say because of how they define" technically correct". They will likely refuse to sign your map until you make the required changes.

So you are saying I have to change my boundary and remove the possible unwritten rights? I don't think so.

This is a PM that is old prior to condo plans. The attorneys already tried to get this approved by revising the CC & R's and they are requiring a PM.

From another thread please see Woolley's attachment. also please see the attachment letter sent to me from the state.

While the letter may not be binding or applicable for much of anything it does represent at least one point of view on the subject of evidence to be shown on subdivision maps

Were the original condos created by a separate condo plan or by a map sheet?

They did not have condo plans at that time. Map sheet.