California Surveyors Forums

Has this topic been beat to death yet on this forum? It didn't jump out to me on a search of past conversation.

Seems in my experience there isn't a black & white consensus on what constitutes an easement/dedication that is minus from gross for a net value.

Surface rights, public v private, and preventing improvements or surface enjoyment are some of the descriptors I've come across to make the distinction.

Are we just left to the sometimes poorly written (or missing) agency by agency definitions?

Anyone have a "higher" resource to help guide where direction is lacking or unclear?

For subdivision map purposes, you're best to go with the agency by agency definitions from the local ordinances relating to land use. When it comes to orderly development it is, after all, subject to general and specific plan implementation.

I agree with Warren. Our city doesn't even require that gross and net areas be shown on the map, but if the surveyor insists for whatever reason on putting gross and net on the map, we tell them they need to adhere to the county standards for calculating gross and net. Here's our county's policy:

a. If structures can be built in an easement, don’t subtract. (Example: avigation easement.)
b. If the easement falls within a required setback area, don’t subtract (Example: public utility easement behind the sidewalk.)
c. If structures cannot be built in the easement, but it is available for use as yard area for the lot owner, don’t subtract. (Examples: shallow non-fenced drainage basins or swales, utility easements, slope easements.)
d. If structures cannot be built in the easement and it is not available for use by the lot owner, it must be subtracted. (Examples: all road and access easements, deep fenced drainage basins.)

Those seem familiar.

Item b. was subtracted from the gross to reduce the total parcel size to prevent a lot split in Nipomo. The storm drain esmt was subtracted but they don't subtract the retention basin areas. Go figure

land butcher wrote:Item b. was subtracted from the gross to reduce the total parcel size to prevent a lot split in Nipomo. The storm drain esmt was subtracted but they don't subtract the retention basin areas. Go figure

Got specifics? I'll look into it.

There are no hard and fast rules for this requirement. From experience, they are the product of various zoning laws intended to limit the ability to develop property. I have worked on coastal properties wherein municipalities have argued that because my clients own a beach, they should not be entitled to use any of the underlying fee. These are underground regulations. See Bollay, attached.

In Los Angeles County from our procedures manual:

4.6 Gross Areas
An engineer/surveyor can show lot areas less than 3/4 of an acre if he desires. Area
can be shown to nearest thousandths if desired. On county maps, and in those cities
which have adopted the County Subdivision Ordinance, the area is required to be
shown to the nearest square foot or to one hundredth if it is over 3 acres.

4.7 Net Areas
The following types of areas will be subtracted from the gross area of a lot/parcel to
obtain the net area that is shown on maps processed by this office:
 Private streets
 Future streets
 Private and future streets
 Flood hazard areas
 Geological restricted-use areas
 Slope easements (private slope easements are not to be deducted)
 Public riding, hiking, and equestrian (bridle) trail easements
 Public sidewalk easements (if delineated on map)
 Public pedestrian walkway easements (if delineated on map)
 Ingress and egress easements (if meandering through a lot or serving more than
one lot or parcel of land)
 Ingress and egress easements to be reserved in documents for the use of 3 or
more lots or parcels
 Fire lanes
 Flood Control District easements
 Private driveways (labeled as private driveways on the final map and serving 3 or
more lots, parcels or units)
 Any storm drain, or flood control easement that meanders through a lot
 Private driveways (if labeled like a private street with a name on the map)
 City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power transmission line easements
 Overhead highway easements
 Overhead power line easements 100’ or more in width
 Flood Control, drainage, or storm drain easements that are adjacent to a property
line and 20' or more in width
 Fire road easements (if meandering across lot)
 Drainage easements that are not adjacent to the property line regardless of width
 Maintenance District easements
 Roadway easements for public use

Slope deductions from gross areas apply only to public slopes (next to streets, etc.) and
not to private slopes (planting, etc.) (see Exhibit 4-3 for labeling sample).

Edward M Reading wrote:

land butcher wrote:Item b. was subtracted from the gross to reduce the total parcel size to prevent a lot split in Nipomo. The storm drain esmt was subtracted but they don't subtract the retention basin areas. Go figure

Got specifics? I'll look into it.

That was in the mid 80s and the lot split was denied so I have no idea which lot it was now. There is a whole section of Nipomo with these one acre lots that could be cut into 2 half acre lots but if SLO could find a way to deny the split they did, or at least they did then.

Another lot up there was IIRC about 50 acres and the owner wanted to cut a 5 ac parcel out of one corner. At the meeting with the SLO head of planning SLO said it was ok and that he could even divide the sly line into residential lots but the owner only wanted the 5 ac cut out
We did the survey prepared the tentative sent the package in and per SLO had to wait 180 days before checking on it. at ~185 days we got the whole package back because one letter was included that was supposed to be separately mailed to a different dept in the same building, so we repackaged everything and sent it back up, mailing the letter separately. 180 days later (really one year) the split is denied. Why? SLO planning dept changed their minds about approving it.