California Surveyors Forums

Greetings,

I have a gentleman who has 4 lots he wishes to adjust slightly. Two lots are on the east side of a private drive way / utility easement. and the other two are on the west side of said easement. The adjusted line is contained to each set of the two lots.

To save everyone time money and effort, (including the planners), I am proposing a single application for these 4 lots. A question has been brought up that these lots MAY not truly be adjacent due to the driveway / utility easement. does anyone have thoughts on this, Any prior experience ? This "Adjacent" notation seems a bit fuzzy in this case. These Lots were all created by one Map.

Thank you in advance

"Good"

The operating word is contiguous, and easements (even railroads and highways) don't affect the relationship of the underlying fee parcels.

Per CEB Subdivision Map Act manual:

Ҥ 2.10 5. Contiguous Units

The Map Act’s definition of “subdivision” refers to the division of land shown on the county assessment roll “as a unit or as contiguous units.” Govt C 66424. Thus, the basic point of reference for contiguity is the latest equalized county assessment roll (see §2.9). The Map Act also expressly provides, however, that units will be considered contiguous even if separated by roads, streets, easements, or railroad rights-of-way. Govt C 66424; Save Mt. Diablo v. Contra Costa County (29=015) 240 CA4th 1368, 1380, 56 Ops Cal Atty Gen 105 (1973); 54 Ops Cal Atty Gen 213 (1971).

The Attorney General has taken the position that this list of exceptions to contiguity is not intended to be comprehensive, and parcels may be considered contiguous even if separated by a fee simple strip of land. See 61 Ops Atty Gen 299 (1978) (parcels considered contiguous even though separated by four-foot-wide canals owned in fee by Bureau of Reclamation); see also Van’t Road v County of Santa Clara (2003) 113 CA4th 549.” . . .

We all should subscribe to this valuable resource: "California Subdivision Map Act and the Development Process" published by the Continuing Education of The Bar. 1(800)-232-3444

Crazy Phil - Surveyor to Recorder

Thank you Gentlemen, (Warren and Phil)
Yes contiguous, is the word. That Mt. Diablo v. contra costa County really set the bar on this. I shall proceed with determination.
Have a wonderful week

"Good"

hellsangle wrote: Mon Aug 22, 2022 10:16 am We all should subscribe to this valuable resource: "California Subdivision Map Act and the Development Process" published by the Continuing Education of The Bar. 1(800)-232-3444

Crazy Phil - Surveyor to Recorder

+

Also worthwhile are CEB's "California Easements & Boundaries" and "Neighbor Disputes"

Keep in mind that these get updated periodically. You may get an update arriving on your desk along with an invoice for ~$300.

However, these publications are well worth the cost of admission.

See the article in the Cal Surveyor:

https://www.californiasurveyors.org/Doc ... Surv98.pdf

Mind the difference between meaning of words adjacent and abutting.
Abutting means actually touching (sharing a single lot line).
Two lots across the street from one another are adjacent, but not necessarily abutting (except maybe when you consider an underlying fee).
Two lots separated by a fee strip can be adjacent, but are not abutting. (think two 640+ acre parcels being split apart by a freeway). Those parcels are adjacent to each other, but abutting the freeway (and not abutting each other).

Two lots separated by a fee strip can be adjacent, but are not abutting. (think two 640+ acre parcels being split apart by a freeway). Those parcels are adjacent to each other, but abutting the freeway (and not abutting each other).

Maybe yes, maybe no. Check out this old thread: viewtopic.php?p=9649&hilit=freeway#p9649

Easy answer: it depends.

Jim Frame wrote: Mon Aug 29, 2022 8:14 pm

Two lots separated by a fee strip can be adjacent, but are not abutting. (think two 640+ acre parcels being split apart by a freeway). Those parcels are adjacent to each other, but abutting the freeway (and not abutting each other).

Maybe yes, maybe no. Check out this old thread: viewtopic.php?p=9649&hilit=freeway#p9649

Easy answer: it depends.

You are talking about the concept of contiguity as it applies to the specific SMA clause.

I was branching off into the meaning of words abutting and adjacent. Both, abutting and adjacent could be considered contiguous in the way the law is applied for lot line adjustments.
Adjacent still means 'near' and abutting means touching.

If two parcels are separate by a fee strip, and have never been legally subdivided, they can be adjacent and contiguous, but not abutting. Two lots in a tract which have been properly subdivided can be abutting, and not contiguous.

It's a comment about the clarity of meaning of certain words.