California Surveyors Forums

Hoping everyone is safe and healthy in this difficult time.

Looking for case law, common sense, or other’s experiences on this one. One Assessors Parcel, covered entirely by one 80 year old commercial building, is comprised of several M&B parcels. This property has been occupied, bought, and sold for 80 years as one ‘lot’. No evidence of ‘express written intent’ to merge in the past has been found.

Should this be taken as one ‘legal lot’ on the basis that the underlying lots were merged by the obvious intent of the original owner to do so as evidenced by the building construction over all the lot lines? Or, alternatively, as multiple legal lots per CA Civil Code 1093 and no ‘express written intent’ of merger? My experience is some agencies take the former view and some the latter.

I’m interested in any input on this, and haven’t found much to go by on this one. Usually we find ourselves arguing for the existence of multiple lots in reliance on CA Civil Code 1093, but it isn’t difficult to understand the commonsense take that this is one lot. After all, in 1940 I don’t think they had to worry about formal merger as a prerequisite for building permits! As I recall, Brown v Tehama County opinion found that CA CC1093 may well not be ‘declaratory of existing law’ or retroactively applicable to former times when concerns such as this weren’t even a twinkle (or pain) in a surveyor’s eye.

What say you?

What is your goal?

The objective is to adjust the line of the above 'parcel/several parcels' and a neighboring parcel to a new configuration. The question is: may this be done by LLA or must a Parcel Map be used?

If you believe the above is 'one legal lot, a LLA can be used. If you believe the above is several legal lots, a PM must be used as there will be more than 4 existing parcels, thus no option to use a LLA. A LLA would be preferable in this instance from the cost and timeline standpoint.

How many parcels do you believe there are and how many do you want in the end?

How about a merger? Two or more contiguous parcels. SMA section 66451.10
If the local agency doesn't have a merger ordinance, different story.
Our ordinance states that a merger, without reversion to acreage may be accomplished.

You can do a thousand lot line adjustments if you want, four at a time.

For myself I can see it both ways, and am looking for any guidance or opinions on this topic which seems to be somewhat open to interpretation. I’m aware of the posted code sections and Brown v Tehama County, which don’t precisely address this particular fact set.

The code seems to favor finding lots to be still separate. However, I believe some counties (Sonoma?) won’t recognize lots as being separate if actions have been taken in the past such as home construction across the lot lines or similar revealing ‘intent’ to merge. I was looking for any guidance that would indicate which take is more correct, if any exists.

Or maybe this is just one of those gray areas...

Merger won’t work as lines need to be adjusted, not just removed.

Merge first, then adjust?

Thanks for the input everyone. Merge then adjust would do it. I was more curious about whether this would be considered one lot or several by practitioners in folks’ different regions of the state, and if there was any case law or the like addressing this issue. Cheers!

I would start with a chain of title to see how the properties came into being and how they were described. That will provide the answers you need. If you like what you see, you can cast them into separate ownership(s) and apply for a Certificate of Correction(s) for each.


Also if separate building permits have been issued, issuance of a Certificate of Compliance is MANDATORY.

Still too many variables.

Here, upon any permit application, multiple jurisdictions make us merge old lots with buildings straddling the lines. They are definitely considering those multiple lots, as do I.

Whenever I get a call for those, I first research to see if we can LLA (instead of merging all) to end up with more than 1 parcel, instead of just merging willy-nilly. A lot line would cost thousands of dollars to get back after merging.

Elias, I agree with above, that you can do a merger, then LLA, or multiple LLAs. I have done both scenarios in the recent past.

Some agencies allow a Lot Tie Agreement, which retains the underlying lot lines but considers them merged when determining if they comply with building and zoning codes. The City I was in did that in several instances. Once to comply with building code due to a pedestrian bridge that connected two buildings that crossed over the lot line. Another time to address a zoning issue because there was a parking garage on one lot serving a building on another lot and lots used just for parking wasn't allowed in the code. And another time it was used for a large strip mall property to eliminate the need for easements for all the shared parking and utilities. The Lot Tie Agreement can be rescinded if the building is torn down. I'm not sure how a LLA would play into this, though. That's where it gets complicated. As required in 66412, all lots resulting from a LLA must conform to local building and zoning codes. As long as that building remains over any lot line included in your LLA, I don't know how you can comply, so the agency can shoot you down.

It's been a long long time, but I remember running an extensive traverse inside a warehouse office complex, and then returning to stakeout Firewalls on the lot lines.
maybe I have the file somewhere.