California Surveyors Forums

Hi all,

The project is a Lot Line Adjustment to merge two adjacent lots. One parcel is a subdivision lot, the other is described by metes and bounds. The configuration of the parcels doesn't lend itself to creating a perimeter metes and bounds description of the new single parcel.

Is it appropriate to simply re-use the two existing legal descriptions to describe the new parcel. Something similar to "Lot X of ... subdivision, together with the following described ..." Should the use of "Parcel 1" and "Parcel 2" be avoided so as to not give the impression two legal lots still exist?

This LLA will be recorded as a Certificate of Compliance, including the Existing and Proposed Legals, and a Plat showing the "Lot line to be removed". Doesn't this effectively merge the parcels, regardless of the construction of the legal description?

This seems to come up from time to time, but I haven't found much to refer to in these cases...

No, this can be confusing. A merger is exclusive under the SMA. Are you going to the conference? I will be discussing this topic. Unless you specifically declare this to be a merger, it is not a merger regardless of whatever the city or county says.

Too many municipalities are familiar with this facet of law and the SMA.

Elias,

We need a bit more information to make any salient comments about this. For example, what jurisdiction is this under? Some actually have a separate Lot Merger or “Consolidation” process while some use the Lot Line Adjustment process to do the job. The difference is that the Merger process is not specifically covered under SMA§66412(d) while the Adjustment process is covered.

If this is for a voluntary merger, then much of the process is governed under Article 1.5 of the SMA, §66451.10 to §66451.24. The bottom line is that, unless the local jurisdiction goes through a heavily regulated process, the merging of two or more parcels requires an affirmative action on the part of the property owner. That is to say that the owner wants to go through the process and actually merge multiple parcels into a single parcel in an irreversible action. Recreating the parcel lines would require a completely new and independent subdivision process.

Why are the parcels being merged? Is the client putting up a building that will sit on the line between the two parcels? If so, that actually makes sense. If the parcels remain as separate parcels, they can be sold or mortgaged separately. That leads to potential problems when a single building spans two parcels owned by separate people. Those are the type of issues the jurisdiction is avoiding by requiring the merger as a condition of issuing a permit to develop the property.

As far as the description of the property, under current LLA Statutes, it is sometimes quite difficult to prepare a legal description properly describing the resulting lots, particularly when there is a disparity in the type of description used on the various lots. A description can be written for a mapped parcel by making calls to the lines and along the lines of the parcel. The historical fact of the previous subdivision map is not set aside by the merger.

Wouldn’t it be great if there was some simple mapping process for mergers and adjustments that was governed by §66412(d)? If it required owner and lender approval as well as jurisdiction surveyor and planning approval, it would meet the requirement for constructive notice and show up in title chain. Then, the resulting lots could be referred to by mapping designations, just like other mapped lots.

So, Elias, share some more information with us, if you can. If you are unable to publicly share the information, feel free to PM me or give me a call. These are the sorts of issues I’ve made a career of dealing with. And…I’ll be at the conference, too!

Ian

Elias French

I would think your legal description is fine, if you do not have a merger process
from the local controlling authority then you must add the wording from
Civil Code 1093, showing intent to combine into single lot of record.

Bri

Hi all, here is some more information,

This is a voluntary owner-initiated merger for the purpose of obtaining a permit to construct a building covering both parcels.

The local jurisdiction has no separate merger/consolidation process under the SMA. Mergers are accomplished via LLA's, which are recorded as Certificates of Compliance. The LLA consists of the Existing Parcel legal descriptions, the Proposed New Parcel legal description, and a plat showing the existing and proposed parcel configuration. No language is included per Civil Code 1093 declaring the owner's intent to merge. That intent would be evidenced by the plat showing the proposed parcel configuration, and the new legal description, which would typically be a perimeter metes and bounds type.

The problem arises, as Ian alluded to, when the preparation of the new perimeter metes and bounds legal description is difficult or cumbersome. Which brings up the question: Does the construction of the new legal description itself determine the number of parcels created, or does the information in the entire LLA, including the plat showing "lot line to be removed", etc. evidence the intent to merge?

For example, if two subdivision lots were to be merged, does it matter whether the new legal took the form of "Lots A and B of ...", or a perimeter metes and bounds description along the exterior lines of those same lots?

Typical or not, I personally wouldn't prepare a new perimeter metes and bounds description around the exterior of the parcels unless there was specific code that required it. It is completely unnecessary, why mess with title?

In my opinion, it does not do your client any justice if you do not take the initiative and if needed to educate the agency of the merger process to do a merger as outlined in the SMA. I believe a LLA is not appropriate since a LLA means your starting with two lots and ending with two lots, no matter what the agency is telling you otherwise. A merger into one legal lot is the right thing to do, and prepare a new legal description describing the parcel as one lot. This will clearly identify the intent of the owner, and using a two part "Together with" description, may be ok.

Elias:

I suspected that the situation was as you outline.

I also believe that, with a owner initiated merger, that a multi-part description description "glued together" with a "together with"statement would be sufficient. Adding a statement of intent would be beneficial, too. (It is the intent of this description to merge the two parcels even though they are described separately..."

Finally, per §66451.10(b)(1), the local jurisdiction has the authority to utilize a Lot Line Adjustment to merge parcels.

Please make sure the beneficiary or trustee knows about the merger. It could be a real mess if the mortgage holder comes to foreclose on one lot and finds a building and additional parcel attached. It creates lawsuits...

Ian

For some of us all the education and discussion with
the local controlling authorities go on deaf ears.

We use the Lot Line Adjustment to combine with the proper wording
as to trigger Civil Code 1093. Try this "The above described descriptions are being combined into a single distinct parcel".

As for using Civil Code 1093 the other way
I have proved to planning that just combining descriptions does not
erase interior lines.

Bri

Mr. Smith wrote:For some of us all the education and discussion with
the local controlling authorities go on deaf ears.

We use the Lot Line Adjustment to combine with the proper wording
as to trigger Civil Code 1093. Try this "The above described descriptions are being combined into a single distinct parcel".

As for using Civil Code 1093 the other way
I have proved to planning that just combining descriptions does not
erase interior lines.

Bri

I have had the same issue, apparently no one in govt has ever read Wattles Writing legal desc's. Changing sectionalized land or lot and block to metes and bounds is going to do nothing but create the potential for gaps and overlaps.

see my thread on "The last straw"

land butcher wrote: ... apparently no one in govt has ever read Wattles Writing legal desc's. ..."

Your broad brush descriptions of government employees do not help your argument.

Edward M Reading wrote:

land butcher wrote: ... apparently no one in govt has ever read Wattles Writing legal desc's. ..."

Your broad brush descriptions of government employees do not help your argument.

Amen, Ed.

PLS7393 wrote: I believe a LLA is not appropriate since a LLA means your starting with two lots and ending with two lots, no matter what the agency is telling you otherwise.

Is this really so? When I read the statute I see:

66412.
This division shall be inapplicable to any of the following:
(d) A lot line adjustment between four or fewer existing adjoining parcels, where the land taken from one parcel is added to an adjoining parcel, and where a greater number of parcels than originally existed is not thereby created, if the lot line adjustment is approved by the local agency, or advisory agency.

So in the example you can't "end with three" but where are you restricted form ending with 1? Is it really the consensus or more importantly the law that a Lot Line Adjustment cannot result in 1 parcel where there where 2 or maybe even 1 parcel where there were 4?

What's the law that governs "a lesser number of parcels than originally existed is not thereby created"?

Rich Maher stated "What's the law that governs "a lesser number of parcels than originally existed is not thereby created"?"

Come on Rich, surely you do not expect the land surveying community to get a highfalutin and actually start ta readin', a ciphering and such. Those darned Orange County guys always a focusin' on da details of the practice. Who do those practice based OC folks think they are, Maxwell Smart?

DWoolley

Sorry about that Chief - missed it by that much!

I think you two (Woolley / Smith) should step into the cone of silence!

this is a joke! for those who know nothing about the cone of silence

Brian

There is no such thing as a lot line adjustment/lot merger. The ONLY solution is an owner initiated merger. It doesn't matter what the municipality says. You may have to educate them.

I essentially wrote the modern lot line adjustment laws.

I am a member of the Orange County Chapter.

Please consider the attached. I included some law that might be helpful. I tend to consider Supreme Court rulings.
Lot mergers are exclusive under the SMA. Lot line adjustments are exempt from the LLA.

Article 1.5. Merger of Parcels:

66451.10.
(b) This article shall provide the sole and exclusive authority for local agency initiated merger of contiguous parcels. On and after January 1, 1984, parcels may be merged by local agencies only in accordance with the authority and procedures prescribed by this article. This exclusive authority does not, however, abrogate or limit the authority of a local agency or a subdivider with respect to the following procedures within this division:

(1) Lot line adjustments.

Notwithstanding any of the above I have witnessed confusion over the years as to whether or not a LLA can merge lots. There are close to 500 different local agencies in California and each and every one of them have a different interpretation of what the purpose, form, content and procedures are for LLA's.

Yes, you need an enabling ordinance.

See page 96.

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

mpallamary wrote:Yes, you need an enabling ordinance.

And therein lies the problem. For those agencies that have not implemented an enabling ordinance pursuant to SMA 66499.20.3 for voluntary merger, what's a surveyor to do? Sit around and wait for one? File a one-lot parcel map? The LLA process may not be the ideal way to handle this, but it seems to be an accepted practice among many agencies as a way to recognize a lot merger.

You follow state law as that is the law. Wish I had a better answer. Absent a local law, state law always prevails!

rmaher wrote:
Is this really so? When I read the statute I see:

66412.
This division shall be inapplicable to any of the following:
(d) A lot line adjustment between four or fewer existing adjoining parcels, where the land taken from one parcel is added to an adjoining parcel, and where a greater number of parcels than originally existed is not thereby created, if the lot line adjustment is approved by the local agency, or advisory agency.

Go ahead Rich and do whatever you want to confuse your client. I try to simplify the process and follow the appropriate actions.
Most agencies I have worked, and dealt with, doing a lot merger is a whole lot easier than a lot line adjustment.