California Surveyors Forums

How should the legal descriptions for Lot Line Adjustments be handled?

What legal description should be used on a Grant Deed for a Lot Line Adjustment? What are jurisdictions, lenders and title companies asking you to do?
Most jurisdictions agree that a document must be recorded that provides approval for the future lots to be sold using the new lot configurations. Most jurisdictions call it a Certificate of Compliance but some have a different name for it. It is typically signed and notarized by the owners of record and it is also signed by someone in authority representing the jurisdiction. It includes legal descriptions of the adjusted parcels. The certificate states that all future conveyances must use these legal descriptions.

Here are three methods that have been used for the grant deeds.

Method 1
The conveyance of the portions of land that is included in the adjustments must take place via a grant deed. Owner A executes a grant deed (as grantor) to Owner B (grantee). The ENTIRE LEGAL DESCRIPTION of the adjusted parcel in its final configuration that will be owned by Owner B is used in the grant deed. In actuality, only the property owned by Owner A gets conveyed. The same thing occurs for Owner B. He executes a deed using the entire legal description that will be owned by Owner B. The title companies I have worked with agree that this works for the conveyance. The lenders use the new legal descriptions to reconvey the loans so that they are now encumbering the newly adjusted parcel. The title company issues a policy of title insurance using the new legal descriptions. If property corner monuments are set then a Record of Survey is filed and each parcel is referenced by the document number of the recorded grant deed as described above. Any lot lines shown on the Record of Survey that have been extinguished are shown as dashed lines and usually a note that says something like “previous lot line has been deleted”.

Method 2
A Parcel Map is prepared and filed showing the newly adjusted parcels. Grant deeds are prepared using the simple form description (Parcel 1 of Parcel Map #4455 in the City of, County of, State of, as filed on Date in Book/Page). All documents refer to this simple legal description.
The drawback to this method is that a tax bond must be paid for unpaid taxes and the fees are usually higher.

Method 3 – This method is being requested by the City of Chula Vista on a project I am working on.
After or concurrent with the recording of the Certificates of Compliance, grant deeds are prepared for conveying the adjusted portions of land. The legal descriptions used ONLY THE ADJUSTED AREAS. Owner A grants the sliver or portion of land that he wishes to convey to Owner B. Similarly, Owner B grants the sliver or portion of land that he wishes to convey to Owner A. If a deed like this is introduced into the record could it be construed as a separate parcel? Will the public be confused by this?

Ken Wilson LS5571

Govt Code 66412:

(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.

I don't think there's any confusion there . . . "is not thereby created"?

regardless - prepayment of taxes still applies.

Phil - Sonoma

"The lot line adjustment shall be reflected in a deed, which shall be recorded." Option 3 followed back to the LLA approval holds up and does not create additional legal parcels.

However, I agree that there is some danger to the public because someone could unwittingly convey just a piece of the new parcel later on down the road. I would want to title the legal description something to the affect that this is a portion of a parcel for the purpose of perfecting the LLA or reflecting the LLA as required by the map act ( or the City for that matter).

First: Method 3 to line up Title correctly.
Then the owners grant themselves their own entire new description with separate Grant Deeds.
3 deeds minimum, unless...
All the LLA parcels are owned by the same entity, then the owners grant themselves the entire new description(s).

There is a jurisdiction in my area that usta use Method 1, but utilized Quitclaim Deeds, instead of Grant Deeds as the vehicle.

I sent this same question to a Title Company president. Here is the response,

Ken,
Method 3 can be done and I’ve seen it done before but the problem is it’s not a “legal parcel”. It is a piece of a legal parcel. When this method is done, frequently in the future when the parties go to sell or refinance, only the old original description gets used because that is what is on their grant deed and the new description gets ignored entirely. Or they use both the old and new description and make a huge mess out of the property and the legal description. Title cannot be insured for just the strip that is on the deed because it is not a “legal parcel”. I understand that the City’s issue is that they can’t convey what they don’t own. This is true but in the same scenario if they use the entire description, they’re only conveying what they own. This is the most confusing method and I have seen it cause problems in the future. If this is the method the City insists on what I would do is do the deeds for the strips but concurrent with that have the owner of each parcel do a deed from themselves to themselves for the entire new description stating that it is to confirm title in the grantee herein. This way the last deed of record will be a deed for the complete entire description and should alleviate any future issues.

". . . and I have seen it cause problems in the future."

Not if the title companies had competent staff instead of just copying the last deed!

So easy a caveman can do it: Parcel one: blah blah blah Together with Parcel two: blah blah blah. But they would require them to know how to read and compile a deed. Wattles & Minnick must be turning in their graves!

Have a good weekend, all.

Phil - Sonoma

Problem with new perimeter descriptions is surveyors tend to screw them up at times, inadvertently changing bearing base mid description, missing calls, changing calls, arbitrarily forcing misclosures into the new description to make things close that didn't before, adding calls to adjoiners that never existed, introducing typos, etc. One should not attempt to do this without a fully resolved perimeter survey which is oftentimes unnecessary. I'd much rather keep with the real McCoy and an exception or together with clause. Not to mention, by rewriting title surveyors are unnecessarily exposing themselves more than they may realize. A statement is usually required at end stating the purpose and referencing a LLA permit number so the record is clear and it's not confused to be a separate parcel. Title Co.'s have no problem picking this up with a sale. I don't think it's even legal for agencies to require perimeter descriptions though they try to enforce it even without it being in their local code. I've thought about suing them for this, perhaps CLSA should. I have seen attorneys that don't know what they're doing transfer to trust and miss these but that's their problem. If you want to be super careful record to yourself the resultant/together with excepting therefrom description.

Every word was "spot on", Olin!

They don't seem to "get it".

Have a good weekend, all.

Phil - Sonoma

So which method have the jurisdictions used that you have dealt with? Method 1, 2 or 3?

I've used #2 & #3 . . . personally - the latter preferred.

#1 is not the best. Should an error/omission will cause future problems. It also does not reflect the "metes & bounds". Personally, I speculate that #1 is to perform the job of assessor's mapping and the title company.

Phil's two cents - Sonoma

Well i presented this info to the City of Chula Vista. Guess who gets to write two more legal descriptions with sketches for the sliver parcels?

Well i presented this info to the City of Chula Vista. Guess who gets to write two more legal descriptions with sketches for the sliver parcels?

Method 3 Is used in Santa Barbara County. A Certificate of Compliance is done, but the partial re-conveyances of the slivers are done concurrently so that the original owners are only conveying what is being adjusted. The CofC is then has the newly configured lots a Parcel 1, Parcel 2. It doesn't create a potential for a sliver lot, if it's done correctly.

Method 1

I've used all three.
I find a combination of Methods 1 and 3 together working better than 1 or 3 alone, as I've seen several times LLAs voided because of things being recorded out of order.

The parcel map Method 2 is cool because you can throw in easements, covenants of easements, CC&Rs, etc., if the project is going in that direction of complexity.

Methods 1 and 2.

I too am processing a lot line adjustment in Chula Vista. For this I am using the parcel map. Using the legal description method requires a ROS whenever the new alignment is monumented. I liked the idea of writing the description for the new deeds, but the parcel map route turned out to be easier in the long run.