California Surveyors Forums

I get this issue often when surveying a property which originally goes to the middle of the street. Sometimes it's clearly mentioned in the title report that the area lying withing limits of the street is granted to the City, so I subtract the area and show the boundary on the edge of ROW.
But sometimes it is an Ingress-Egress easement for road purposes, my understanding is that as long as it's an easement, the property still goes to the center of the street. Now the CIty Engineer wants me to show the property to the edge of ROW.
The easement appears 3 times in the title report.
1-Easement for road purposes over so much of the herein described property as lies within limits of XX Ave.
2- ROW over that portion of the herein described premises as lies within XX Ave, as granted to PG&E
3- ROW for Ingress-Egress over the northerly 20' of premises, as described in the deed from X to Y
I think the Ave. was a private street at the time hence the Ingress-Egress granted to Y.

If the city maintains the road then you might as well show the boundary at the ROW line. What is the value of showing ownership to CL?

Agree with what David mentioned, I would add notation that the right of way exists as an easement per instrument no _______, and underlying fee extends to the centerline of the street.

David, I don't know what you mean by value, I don't have any document showing the half of street was dedicated to the City, all the documents existing show a ROW easement. How about if the owner wants to claim his property to the center and can accuse me of being fraudulent?
PLS 9196, I have already shown the document on the map, the question is where is the limit of the client's property?

I would show the property going to the cl. That is his real property for which he is being taxed. If the city doesn't want it shown, I would suggest preparing a plat and legal for dedication.

I am working on an ROS in which the client owns to centerline. The city came in and took a 5' strip in fee, 25' from cl to make a 30' row. The problem is they forgot to take the initial 25 feet so the client own to cl minus a 5 foot strip in fee. I will show this on the map and call out that the public has a right to use property within row, but show it as a boundary line. I am obligated to show fee ownership per the grant deed. If the property went to cl and it is shown to the row, isn't that a misrepresentation of what is owned...?

You may want to be very careful about what you do. I have attached an abbreviated version of a lecture I have given in various chapters of CLSA.

Remember that whatever you do, your actions and decisions translates into liability for you as an individual. It is your map and your license.

The City of San Diego tried to require it and the local community objected and stopped this request.

It is okay to say No.

Here is the language we adopted in San Diego:

*******************************************************************

REVERSION RIGHTS

A reversion right is the assumed right of the owner of a parcel to a portion of the underlying
fee interest within an adjoining public street. Sections 831 and 1112 of the California Civil
Code and Section 2077(4) of the Code of Civil Procedures create a rebuttable legal
presumption that title to a parcel includes title to the center line of an adjoining public street.
It is called “a reversion right” or a “reversionary interest” because, when the street easement
is vacated, the now unencumbered land is returned to the adjoining owner, if it is the
successor in interest to the person that originally dedicated the street for public use. This is
not a new fee interest. The adjoiner has always owned the land encumbered by the street
easement. There are rules to construe the limits of the reversion area contained in books
written by Curtis M. Brown and William M. Wattles and Gurdon Wattles, although these
rules are not all inclusive.

In some cases, reversion rights may have been severed by a poorly written legal description
in a past conveyance of the property or the acceptance of unproven monuments. Only a court
can conclusively determine that an earlier conveyance of real property severed reversion
rights. Unless there is a definite statement in a deed such as “Excepting therefrom all rights
of reversion within the adjoining public streets”, it is best to consider the reversion rights
intact. Several court cases support the contention or understanding that a grantor usually
intends to convey their total interest in a land parcel, including rights of reversion in an
adjoining street. (See Appendix B for related case law.) It was the practice of early deed
writers to use a metes and bounds description where a lot and block description was more
appropriate. This practice can leave the status of reversion rights unclear. Again, only a court
can make the final determination in such cases.

In order to provide notice that indicates the intent of the map is not to sever any legitimate
reversionary interest in the property, the following note shall be shown on all final and parcel
maps above the owners signature.

IT IS OUR INTENT TO SUBDIVIDE OUR ENTIRE INTEREST IN THE
REAL PROPERTY SHOWN ON THIS MAP WITHIN THE HEAVY
BORDER, INCLUDING ANY REVERSION RIGHTS THAT MAY EXIST
WITHIN THE ADJOINING PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY. IT IS NOT OUR
INTENT TO ALTER OR SEVER THE LEGITIMATE RIGHTS OF
OTHERS WHO MAY HAVE A CLAIM ON THOSE REVERSION RIGHTS
THROUGH PRIOR CONVEYANCES.

If the land surveyor wants to show the reversionary interest on the maps, they may do so. If
they choose to do so, they must include the streets within the legal description on their map
(i.e. together with x, y, and z streets as dedicated to public use) and include it in the title
report, and include the reversion note shown above on their map. This statement is not a
guarantee that reversion rights exist within the mapped area, but it does clearly show that the
intent of the subdivider is to include any reversion rights that may exist within the adjoining
rights-of-way.
*****************************************************

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

sako wrote:David, I don't know what you mean by value, I don't have any document showing the half of street was dedicated to the City, all the documents existing show a ROW easement. How about if the owner wants to claim his property to the center and can accuse me of being fraudulent?
PLS 9196, I have already shown the document on the map, the question is where is the limit of the client's property?

sako- What exactly is your client trying to accomplish?

I suppose that I intend to provide the public with a picture of the land that is practically useful. I do the same when a portion of the parcel falls in a navigable stream. Why tell people that they have rights to land that they cannot really use?

How can the client "claim his property to the center" if the public is using the road? If you feel strongly that they own to the centerline and the city has no rights beyond their easement then would you advise the client to begin the 25' setback at the centerline and build their home on the edge of ROW?

My opinion: If there is some question regarding the unwritten rights of the city to the use of the ROW then that is a problem for the city to resolve. It is not prudent or efficient for me to spend my client's budget trying to research and resolve a bunch of civic nonsense. Plain and simple if the public is using the street and sidewalk then it is a public ROW in my opinion. Telling the client something else will only confuse matters. If the city later chooses to abandon the ROW then that is the right time to fight this battle.

Antiquated legal descriptions do not provide your client with rights to the property that the agency has historically maintained and the public has used.

I would show record ties and measurements to CL per deed and bold boundary line at the edge of ROW for practical purposes.

If I was being taxed on land that fell in a publicly used and maintained ROW then I would certainly file an appeal. I do not believe that land is typically appraised for tax purposes by deed review. Occasionally it is appraised by area when it is not an arm's length transaction. I have some limited experience with mass appraisal services. I believe that market value is the main indicator of tax value for residential parcels and best use is the main indicator for commercial. If the land is in a stream or public ROW then I submit that it has very limited market value

David, The owner doesn't intend to own to the CL, but my opinion is that if I show the property to the edge of ROW, there should be a dedication to the city.
The city says I don't need to do it since there is an easement for ingress-egress.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... &article=2.

https://law.justia.com/cases/california ... 0/248.html

Food for thought . . .

sako wrote:David, The owner doesn't intend to own to the CL, but my opinion is that if I show the property to the edge of ROW, there should be a dedication to the city.
The city says I don't need to do it since there is an easement for ingress-egress.

I think you are stressing over nothing. I'm not sure how many cities take their ROW in fee vs. an easement, but as long as you properly show on the map how the ROW was acquired, I don't see why you'd need to draw the boundaries to the centerline. If there is an abandonment later on, he'll get what he is owed even without the lines. The only benefit I see of drawing lines to centerline is if someone is anticipating a future abandonment and you want to define a unique situation on who gets what after abandonment. This opinion applies to public street ROW. For private access easements and other public easements and even creeks, I think the property line should be drawn across those easements.

ekparian wrote:I would show the property going to the cl. That is his real property for which he is being taxed. If the city doesn't want it shown, I would suggest preparing a plat and legal for dedication.

If the property owner is being taxed for a public road across his property, he needs to immediately march down to the assessor's office and get that corrected.

Guys, nobody is talking about the tax or future vacation of street. It's just doing the right thing, it's about being diligent. How about if the owner or future owner comes at you and ask you what was the reason to show the property to the edge of ROW knowing there is NO dedication?

Sako,

What kind of document is the city engineer reviewing?
Why not offer it as dedication? Would that appease the city?

ekparian wrote:Sako,

What kind of document is the city engineer reviewing?
Why not offer it as dedication? Would that appease the city?

believe it or not, it's just a topographic map. I offered the dedication, they say we don't need it.

All the more reason to stick to your guns and show to the cl...

Or

Gosh, maybe you could show it to the row to make the city engineer happy and keep the project moving, but put a note saying the boundary is incorrect, state it goes to centerline and show the easement book/page within the row. Idk if that would work or if you would even feel comfortable doing that.

Not sure what I would do.

Have a good night