California Surveyors Forums

I have processed Lot Line Adjustments in 6 different Counties recently. Every County i have worked in has a different method. One uses the Record of Survey as the document that approves the LLA using a statement right on the map. Then they record the deeds by using legal descriptions based on the filed Record of Survey (Parcel A as shown on the Record of Survey filed in ………). The reviews and confusion in each case is significant - just trying to figure out the process each jurisdiction uses.

When having any Legal Descriptions reviewed by a jurisdiction (Lot Line Adjustments typically include writing a new legal) the process is ridiculously difficult. The reviewing party has their own peculiar requirements which we try to abide by unless it is a principle that we don't agree with. Then we must go through an argument session with the LS reviewing our work. And everyone has their own opinion on how to write a legal description.

The bottom line is we must tell the client to expect higher fees because of this due to extra time it takes. Either to figure out their process and/or defend our legal description.

I completely understand your frustration, Ken.

There are currently 481 incorporated cities and towns in California. Add in the 58 counties and you have 539 different opinions on how to process a Lot Line Adjustment; many require items specifically forbidden by SMA §66412(d). It is amazing how seven sentences of just 253 words can be so misunderstood and misinterpreted. I’ve been on both sides of the equation and it’s still a mess.

The process is both simple and horribly complex. Simple in that you are being granted permission to violate the Act, hence the fact that §66412(d) falls in the exceptions portion of the Act. Complex in that it is impossible to properly comply with the fully extent of laws if a single owner is adjusting two or more (four or fewer) parcels; land cannot be conveyed to oneself [see Civil Code §§1039 & 1040].

The LLA process creates one of more parcels which will be exchanged between parties and then “grafted” into the other parcels outside the normal SMA process. Based on the Statute of Frauds [Civil Code §1624], the substandard parcels need to be described in writing. A plat helps with any description of land. And, finally, some sort of ratification of the description of the ultimate parcels needs to be recorded. If there are multiple parties involved, deeds can be exchanged in a normal fashion. If there is only one party, then deeds cannot be exchanged under normal circumstances. A Certificate of Compliance for the resulting parcels, complete with ultimate description and plat will suffice. Note that this technically violates §66412(d) as the lot line adjustment will not be “…reflected in a deed, which shall be recorded.” The Lot Line Adjustment needs to be memorialized in a document that will be picked up in a Chain of Title and not overlooked on subsequent conveyances.

I have always been taught and have taught) that a description of land should be kept as simple as possible. Flowery, fancy language should be avoided. One of my mentors used to tell me that descriptions were like golf, the scrivener with the fewest words that still did the job was the winner. As much as possible, the old language should never be tossed aside in favor of a brand new, squeaky clean, metes description (usually, no bounds are involved). The old descriptions are a matter of easily accessed record and can be used to establish location based on prior history. Lot 1 of Parcel Map 1234 will always be of record and identifiable, even if the perimeter has been adjusted many times. So will most parcels created by description; we retrace them often in our line of work.

I usually review descriptions based on whether the description actually does the job without problems or tripping itself. The description may not be the one I would write but, if it does the job, it does the job. Unless there is some statutory requirement to follow some inane pattern, I have always figured that I am smart enough and know enough about writing descriptions to be able to figure out if your descriptions is sufficient. It should start somewhere that others can easily find either by prominence or by record. It should follow a logical path and create a closed figure without possibility of being misconstrued. The parcel should be unique. And the description should be retracable.

In my opinion, the consent of any beneficiaries or trustees is needed. If there are difficulties with the mortgage later, they are limited in what they can foreclose upon by the description in the deed of trust. There are cases where the foreclosure created havoc because of this.

A simple solution could be a “Lot Line Adjustment Map” with similar requirements to a Parcel Map but without any conditions beyond those permitted under §66412(d), appropriate reformation of easements between the parcels being adjusted. If there was a requirement for Owner’s Certification, Beneficiary/Trustee Certificate, and approval by the local jurisdiction, the map could easily show the former conditions and the new configuration. The map could be used to set monuments marking the new property lines. The descriptions could be reduced to “Parcel X of LLA Map Y”, similar to Parcel Map lot descriptions. With the Owner’s and Beneficiary/Trustee’s consent and jurisdictional approvals, the map would appear in the chain of title.

As long as the requirements for the map remains in §66412, it would remain as an exception to the SMA, as Lot Line Adjustments are now.

And, until we get an LLA Map, hold agencies feet to the fire over the time frames imposed by the final line of §66412(d):

“A local agency shall approve or disapprove a lot line adjustment pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act (Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 65920) of Division 1).” Read the Act and search out “Longtin’s Land Sue Procedures and Timelines” (http://longtinslanduse.com/docs/ProceduresTimelines.pdf)

Agencies and reviewers, give me a call to discuss if you would like.

Most municipal agencies delegate the map checking to the inexperienced people. I work across the state and am pretty much stunned at the incompetency of these people. They are being trained on your projects at your own expense or your client's.

It is very frustrating to have to deal with incompetent and unskilled people.

That being said, someone is going to criticize me for pointing out the obvious.

Good luck.

One of the most appalling things that stood out when grading the exam (pre- all multiple guess format) was that no matter how much the exam development team dumbed it down, less than a third of the examinees got a third or more of the points on the description problems. One year, the problem requirement was to write a strip description which commence at a monument, thence a certain direction and distance to a parcel line, being the POB, thence continuing on the same bearing across the parcel to the point of termination. A two course description with no angle points.

When I saw this, I was shocked that the exam development team would make the problem so simple with respect to the amount of points assigned (25 to 30% of exam points in those years). But I was absolutely stunned upon seeing that still, given such a ridiculously simplistic problem for a "professional" level exam, less than a third earned a third or more of the points.

That problem would have been too simple for even a first homework problem in a description writing class, yet there are some people with LS after their name who couldn't even get to the POB properly. When I expressed my shock at a problem which was way too simple for even the LSIT (now FLS) exam, the justification I was given was that very few would get more than half the points anyway.

There has been a philosophy among those in charge of licensing for several years that the way to ensure the continued vitality, or even viability of land surveying as a profession is to ensure a reasonably high number of new licensees to keep the overall numbers up.

I strongly disagree. The downfall of land surveying as a viable profession would not come about due to a low number of licensees. It will come about due to an increasing mediocrity that will eventually belie a general lack of actual expertise among licensed surveyors. If a licensed surveyor charges 2 to 3 times as much for a survey as does a local unlicensed unemployed or moonlighting party chief and does just as poor a job or worse, the public is going to eventually catch on. Then part of what we do gets redefined as part of the practice of engineering and the rest gets deregulated.

No doubt, some of those reviewers, and/or those who set the standards in some jurisdictions are among those who got the title of LS even though they bombed on a very dumbed down description question on the LS exam.

Very well stated, Evan. In my years of grading, I was not on a boundary or description writing grading team, so I was unfamiliar with what was being done with the description problem. That changed the final year of the old format, 2011, when I was on the exam development team as a team leader. Like you, I was shocked by how far the development team led the examinee down the description path, leaving them essentially to plug in given bearings and distances. When I questioned the validity, I was told that to do anything less made it almost impossible to grade. Issues like "if they totally blow the POC, struggle to get to the POB, then get all the bearing and distances correct, how do we determine if they got the entire problem incorrect or if we should give them credit for the correct bearings and distances around the parcel?" Huh? They never got to the correct parcel, so how could anything following that be graded as correct?

I had hoped that going to CBT/multiple choice would lead to maybe 4-5 test sections, each requiring some minimal score to pass (say a solid D, like 65%). A candidate would have to pass them all within a given time frame to be issued a license. Unlikely that will ever happen though.

It always bothered me that a person could skip an entire problem, and maybe most of another one, and still pass. I used to tell my staff who were taking the test "just remember, all you need is a good solid F, maybe in the high 40 percentile, and you got it." Looking back, that was just pitiful.