Surplus State Properties for Sale

[LS_8750]

I have a 1995 deed from the State of California where they cut out a piece of land from a larger parcel and sold it off.
Present owner of that parcel wants to get a permit to build something or whatever on that parcel.

County Planning wants to see evidence the parcel was created before certain date to confirm the parcel is not in violation of the Map Act.

Is this parcel legal?

[Jim Frame]

Is this parcel legal?

It will be after you get a Certificate of Compliance.

My understanding is that public agencies with land use authority aren't subject to the SMA within their jurisdictions, so if the state creates a parcel -- regardless of date -- I would expect that the county would have to issue a CofC. That doesn't mean they'll do so willingly, so it may come down to how much in legal fees your client wants to spend.

I have no direct experience with this kind of thing, though I've observed the Regents of the University of California make some land use decisions that would never get off the ground if a private entity were to try it. I've also seen the USPS cut up parcels to their liking in ways that totally ignore state and local land use regulations, telling the local agency to stuff it.

[LS9200]

State agencies are exempt from SMA, but also note that when they create parcels that are not compliant i.e. not buildable they also are supposed to compensate the owner for that in the settlement. Possibly making that certificate of compliance not applicable.

[LS_8750]

Interesting angle LS9200 on the buildable term. Buyer beware. Thanks.

[CBarrett]

The parcel is legally created as far as title is concerned, but it may not be buildable until local jurisdiction has reviewed it against the zoning and building regulations. Government agencies get to divide land without having to prove that it is buildable.

Some years ago I was explained to (By Paul Cuomo) that intent was to have the financial burden of making a parcel of land being buildable should fall on the land developer, rather than the taxpayer.

[Dave Lindell]

There are some interesting projects being built here in Pasadena on remainder parcels after having been decreased by the freeway.
One, on Maple between Hill and Lake, looks like a wedge, and a two-story wedge at that. (It has a steel framework to withstand earthquakes and its apparent frail look.)
Another long, skinny (maybe one room wide) is being built on an L-shaped lot at an off-ramp site.
I say, good use of the land!

[Jim Frame]

Some years ago I was explained to (By Paul Cuomo) that intent was to have the financial burden of making a parcel of land being buildable should fall on the land developer, rather than the taxpayer.

So, screw the landowner twice -- once when forcibly chopping up his land, then again by sticking him with the costly burden of doing anything with the remainder? That sounds to me like a convenient interpretation favored by a public agency, but I don't know that a court would go along with it.

[CBarrett]

Some years ago I was explained to (By Paul Cuomo) that intent was to have the financial burden of making a parcel of land being buildable should fall on the land developer, rather than the taxpayer.

So, screw the landowner twice -- once when forcibly chopping up his land, then again by sticking him with the costly burden of doing anything with the remainder? That sounds to me like a convenient interpretation favored by a public agency, but I don't know that a court would go along with it.

It's the game of pass the buck. The cost always gets spread out to the masses, either by taxes or by the cost of goods or services or the rents charged at said location. Holder of the bigger capital usually ends up with an advantage. Government over businesses, bigger businesses over smaller businesses, over employees and customers and taxpayers.

You want to survive, you have to work, you need to work, you have to pay taxes, you want to get a job, you have to look presentable and buy our goods, want you kids to do well, figure out how to move to a more expensive area. You want skills, pay for school, you want contacts, pay more for a more prestigious school, want to be politically connected, pay for the country club membership...

[LS_8750]

What section of the Map Act excludes from the Act government lands sold to private hands?
In my case Caltrans sold off a couple acres from a larger parent parcel alongside a freeway.

[Dave Lindell]

Not only does Caltrans do what they darn well please, they don't it very well either.

[Warren Smith]

SMA section 66428 (a)(2) excludes land conveyed to or from a governmental agency from the requirements of filing a tentative and parcel map.

[LS_8750]

Right there Mr. Smith. Found it last night following discussion with one of our fellow professionals. Durkee's Map Act Navigator book has some good words re this subject.

[CB6753]

Caltrans policy is to sell undersized remainder parcels to the adjoining owner whenever possible. When that happens, the owner knows that they may need to merge their parcels or perform an lot line adjustment to create a buildable parcel.

When a parcel is sold to an owner who is not the adjoiner, the buyer is told the size of the lot and any existing easements and restrictions. Please don't blame the state for selling the land to a buyer with eyes wide shut.

[mpallamary]

Agreed.

Caveat Emptor.

[dedkad]

I have an old excerpt from a Caltrans ROW Manual that says that prior to September 15, 1935, any deed to the State that was accepted "for a road" or "for road purposes" is actually an easement not in fee no matter what language was used in the deed. And that Cities and Counties could not accept fee for a road until 1955. So if you are getting excess road right-of-way from a public agency, that would be something to watch out for.

However, I can't find this language in the latest version of the Caltrans ROW Manual. Anybody know if this statement is still valid or are there some more current court cases that say otherwise?

[Brad L]

That was section 905 of the Streets and Highways code, it is has since been repealed (1961). The major deciding case was People v Thompson (1954).

"By taking or accepting land for a county highway, the public acquires only the right of way and the incidents necessary to enjoy and maintain the same, subject to the regulations provided in this and the Civil Code and such regulations as may be imposed by local authority, not in conflict with state law. This section shall not be construed or applied so as to prevent a county, city and county, or city from acquiring fee title to land for highway purposes."

The language of the 1935 manual is correct to an extent. The State could take fee title from the beginning unless there was some ambiguity or lesser estate granted (Civil Code 1105 & AG Opinion 04-809) The way I understand it is, and as you explained, if the deed said "right of way" or "for road purposes" then an easement is assumed to be granted, but if the deed just describes property "eg 125' strip of land to the gov't" then the State (or local entity) took the land in fee. That case was City of Los Angeles v Pac. Elec. Ry. Co. (1959)

When coming across a deeds that stated it was for road purposes, but also excluded access from the original fee owner I have assumed these are fee transfers. Some of the old "right of way" or "for road purposes" deeds reserve rights (drainage, access, power, etc...) that helps infer the deed was supposed to be an easement.