California Surveyors Forums

Scenario timeline:

1888: Lots 15 & 16 are created by town map filed in Map Book 1. The lots are 160' N-S by 50' E-W.

2003: A Certificate of Compliance for Lot Line Adjustment is recorded, adjusting the line between the lots such that the parcel configurations are 80' N-S by 100' E-W. In other words, the dividing line is changed from N-S to E-W. The parcels, in both original and new configurations, abut public streets.

2010: The owners of the reconfigured lots place the property into Trust A. I don't have that deed (yet), so I'm not certain what description was used, but I'm assuming it was Lots 15 & 16.

2022: The land is transferred by deed from Trust A to Trust B. The deed description is Lots 15 & 16, with no mention of the LLA.

My client wants a topo survey. I explain that if I relate a topo to the LLA parcels I have to file a ROS, adding about $3k to the cost. If I relate it to the 1888 lots I don't have to file anything, as the lots are 1888 record per a 2004 ROS. The client is budget-conscious and says use Lot 15 & 16.

Question: Does an LLA invalidate the underlying lots for SMA compliance? (Most of the old lots are all are already developed, so other than the LLA question the 1888 lots are compliant.)

Has your "penny-wise. pound-foolish" client thought about ALL the ramifications?

If you do what client wants, could that nullify the Trust A vs Trust B boundaries. Or worse create an division of those Trusts?

Don't let the tail wag the dog. Or there could be a real tale down the road! LOL

Good luck, Jim!

It all depends on your client's current deeds and what they own. An argument could easily be made that the N-S line separating the original lots no longer exists and if you agree to show that, it could be misrepresentative of your client's property boundaries.

Have the corners been shown on a map of record?
That is the criteria.

Have the corners been shown on a map of record?

Lots 15 and 16, yes; LLA parcels, no.

It all depends on your client's current deeds and what they own.

They own the property -- regardless of whether it's described as Lot 15 and Lot 16 or as the LLA parcels, it's the same land.

The trust most recently took title as Lots 15 and 16. My question is whether or not the C of C for the LLA acted to render Lots 15 and 16 non-compliant in the eyes of the SMA. In other words, if they wanted to develop Lot 15 and Lot 16 separately, would they have to get another C of C recognizing those lots as compliant, or is it "once compliant, always compliant"?

I would present it as a potential title problem for the client to resolve on their own. Refer them to the title company for more research into the vesting legal description.

For the topo survey, could you map the exterior property boundary only and leave the interior lines undetermined?

Interesting questions. I do not think the original interior lot exists if the LLA was properly executed – with a few caveats. Deeds are contracts. The contracts were renegotiated to be something else – providing they were properly executed i.e., consideration, acceptance, lawful purpose, capacity etc.

Quick detour, if the parties didn’t execute deeds on the LLA/CoC it technically does not exist in title. Why else would the lots be conveyed into the trust as 15 and 16? If true, you have answered the question, you can only map lines that exist i.e. Lots 15 and 16. The LLA lines do not exist except to cloud the title.

I have caught land surveyors Ridin’ Dirty on a similar scenario. The surveyor performed a LLA, moving the line parallel with and 5’ east of the mapped lot line. The surveyor monumented the old lot line to avoid filing a record of survey and telling the client the monuments were a 5’ offset. Queue the beat…”They see me rollin’, they hatin’, patrolin’ and tryin’ catch me ridin’ dirty….”.

I would tell the potential client to save their money or sell a cow and get back to you when they can afford the survey. A client’s financial wherewithal is not our concern. Not everyone can afford a survey.

Cut to a conversation with a surveyor this week. As technical reviewer for several agencies I had a LLA/CoC submittal that caught my attention. I called the surveyor and asked what he was doing on site, once informed, I explained that is actually subverting the SMA (according to the California Attorney General) and his reply? “Yeah, I didn’t feel right about it”. [Wait, what?!] Wonder how his client will feel when he explains they have to go to a public hearing and submit a tentative map for conditioning that will take at least a year or two.

As I tell my inner professional circle, we fell in with a bad bunch.

DWoolley

Curious, what do they need the topo for?

DWoolley

Jim Frame wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:16 pm They own the property -- regardless of whether it's described as Lot 15 and Lot 16 or as the LLA parcels, it's the same land.

My question is whether or not the C of C for the LLA acted to render Lots 15 and 16 non-compliant in the eyes of the SMA

I see trust deeds every day that contain an incorrect or superceded legal description. I wouldn’t bank on the latest deed being accurate. If someone applied for and received a certificate of compliance then I would expect it to be binding.

I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that the SMA does not allow for the adjusted lines to be reverted back to original as a matter of convenience. If the lot lines were adjusted correctly then it would require another formal LLA to adjust them back. Perhaps I’m not understanding the question

On the other hand I suppose you could map whatever you like but it won’t necessarily make them legal parcels. I see superceded original parcel lines mapped and dimensioned every day as well

David Kendall wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 6:17 pm ...

On the other hand I suppose you could map whatever you like but it won’t necessarily make them legal parcels. I see superceded original parcel lines mapped and dimensioned every day as well

Ixnay. A land surveyor cannot "create" lines on a record of survey (Bus. & Prof. 8762.5) or use a record of survey to subdivide properly.

Am I missing something?

Why are folks mapping "superceded original parcel lines"? I do not understand why someone would do that unless the new descriptions were dependent on the underlying parcel line i.e. beginning at the northeast corners of [superceded] Lot 1.

DWoolley

Curious, what do they need the topo for?

I don't know. I assume they want to develop the properties, but in what manner I can't say.

Jim Frame wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 5:55 am

Curious, what do they need the topo for?

I don't know. I assume they want to develop the properties, but in what manner I can't say.

If it is a topo for development the client can afford the record of survey (or shouldn't be in the development game) - it will be one of the least expensive costs over the next 18 months. Actually, the developer cannot afford not to do the boundary and record of survey for development.

As a consumer, I would not want to pay for a survey - $10k for a piece of paper I cannot read or understand screams ripoff in my consumer mind. In contrast, I recently received several quotes to paint my house. When completed I can enjoy the fresh look every time I pull into the driveway for the next decade. To paint my house costs less than to survey my lot.

Not everyone can afford a survey.

DWoolley

Seems like every agency has a different idea of what the LLA process and format is. The SMA says to reflect them in deeds, but numerous agencies have developed alternative procedures. Not knowing the specific agency or its ordinance or procedure/policy, it sounds like they have grasped onto the remedy portion of the SMA (COC's) as a procedural effort to validate the LLA creation. I tend to believe the recordation of the COC's has demonstrated agency action recognizing the resultant adjusted boundary as resulting in adjusted legal lots, i.e. in compliance with the SMA. Deeds have not been recorded for the resultant adjustment, but the COC's sound like they are likely now in the chain of title. I have to believe the line has been effectively adjusted by this agency method of action (the COC's). Does the Assessor's mapping reflect the adjustment? Regardless, if I was the owner I would pursue a corrective deed to correct the error of the transfer into a trust using the original lot descriptions. I don't believe the error in the creation of the trust deeds has erased the LLA action and reverted the lot definitions. It appears to be more an instance of a correctable error.

One thought on proceeding with a topo survey would be to show only the exterior boundary and not the dividing line of the two lots if this is causing too much heartburn. Include a note stating that the lot line separating the lots created per LLA # xxx is not shown for the purposes of the topographic mapping being provided. Field or mapping establishment of the dividing line is not a requirement for topographic mapping and showing only those lines that are already "established" in the eyes of the LS Act does not appear to trigger need for a new R/S. Including the note will alert users that a dividing line exists but is not shown.

Jim did not state how much of the $3,000 fee to record a R/S was county fee versus his cost. I understand the reasoning as to why this cost is not seen as a resulting in a favorable cost/benefit ratio for the situation at hand. Regardless it sounds like the client is not concerned with having the dividing line monumented nor if it is depicted on the topo. Since the exterior can be mapped on a topo without triggering a new R/S, the client is then able to perform his/her land planning objectives and can decide what the interior lot configuration should be, and he/she can take their own ruler and get a pretty good idea of where the "exist" dividing line is located and if it fits their needs.

Sounds like the LLA dividing line has full agency approval and that approval is recorded. Technically the SMA says deeds also need to be recorded to fully accomplish the "adjustment". One could argue this will occur when one of the lots is transferred into the hands of a separate entity. For now the 2 lots are under one ownership and that ownership has agency approval for the adjustment. The location of the interior lot is not really an issue until the owner goes to sell one of the lots separately, and that action will simply perfect the already approved agency action. Any development action can occur simply based on the already approved agency action as to lot configuration and required setbacks.

I agree with Kendall, the LLA was done. The lines are as done on the LLA. Anything else is wrong.

One thing to consider about your OP Jim is the trigger for a RoS is also ambiguity, 8762(b)(3) IE if a reasonable person would say there is a different solution for those boundaries, you also need to file to explain which position you took.

So there is either no ambiguity, IE its the LLA boundary and you need a ROS, or its the old lots which have ambiguity due to the LLA, so you need a RoS.

Using a bad description for a deed of trust was literally a learning discussion I just had with a tech, talking about how the attorney/estate manager doing the trust likely has no idea what a legal description actually describes. The land owners don't either. So who involved with a transfer to a trust is competent to review the legal descriptions? Answer= No one. since there was no title company involved, there is no county review and there is no surveyor involved. Who is on the hook to fix it? Who the heck knows... But its likely not a Title Company.

Mikey Mueller, PLS9076
Sonoma County

I hear ya on topo-the-whole-thing and don't show division lines.

But what if the "whole" thing is 1,000 hectares? Which "parcel" ya gonna chose?

The problem lies in what the client is going to do with the topo. If it is for improvements, one needs the dividing line for setbacks, etc. Otherwise, if the client plops the improvements straddling a deed line . . . you're gonna have future problems.

. . . don't think it is as simple as "pick one".

Good luck, Jim and have a good weekend, y'all.

Crazy Phil

I get what you're saying Phil. Even if not 1,000 Acres or Hectares or whatever, and instead are relatively small lots but with high values. Even with relatively low land values. Regardless. It may boil down to what the owner is trying to achieve and the project's vision. If during the project scope discussions you feel the dividing line will be necessary for the project, feel free to insist on a R/S or walk away. If it truly is not necessary, why waste $3,000? Document the decision clearly in the agreement and on the product to minimize risk.

Depends on what the survey is for and what the parcels look like and how they are controlled, you may not be obligated to survey the entire property. Especially if it is a large, irregular open land parcel and a subdivision map is not required for what the client needs to do. I would dig a little deeper into why they need the survey, and then decide what is appropriate. I know this statement may offend the sensibilities of those who tend to survey small residential lots, but sometimes you get a project which spans hundreds or even thousands of acres with very irregular boundaries. Of course, when you have a lot in a tract, even if they are large rectangular parcels, it may be tough to convincingly defend that "I only needed to survey one line".

I have not seen anything in the SMA that would make lots 15 and 16 still compliant after the LLA is completed. There is a section on facilitation of LLA's that talks about previous contract on land being rescinded, when a new one is made. There have been many LLA's which were accepted and compliant by permitting agencies without the procedure following the exact letter of the law. If you are too far into the gray area, you may find yourself in the middle of a legal process which may have to be adjudicated. Personally, I like to stay away from these projects and gray areas.

Jim Frame wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:16 pm

It all depends on your client's current deeds and what they own.

They own the property -- regardless of whether it's described as Lot 15 and Lot 16 or as the LLA parcels, it's the same land.

The trust most recently took title as Lots 15 and 16. My question is whether or not the C of C for the LLA acted to render Lots 15 and 16 non-compliant in the eyes of the SMA. In other words, if they wanted to develop Lot 15 and Lot 16 separately, would they have to get another C of C recognizing those lots as compliant, or is it "once compliant, always compliant"?

I don't see it in a code anywhere, but I would imagine that you would need to have some sort of a reversionary process through the agency. I HAVE seen lot line adjustments done on commercial properties, than having to do another LLA done to put the lines back after the deal did not go through (keep in mind that this is this is an overly simplistic explanation summarizing several projects I've seen over the years.) I have not seen this happen often enough to have details committed to memory.

I have seen large pieces of land re-parcelized via certificates of compliance, and they are treated as if the newly issued C of C extinguished the previous one. I have not been hands-on involved in this process, but have come to those projects later in their life. This is usually in So Cal, when large former ranchos were being turned into suburban housing complexes, and they are intermediate steps in massive development plans and agreements.

Mike Mueller wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 1:21 pm I agree with Kendall, the LLA was done. The lines are as done on the LLA. Anything else is wrong.

One thing to consider about your OP Jim is the trigger for a RoS is also ambiguity, 8762(b)(3) IE if a reasonable person would say there is a different solution for those boundaries, you also need to file to explain which position you took.

So there is either no ambiguity, IE its the LLA boundary and you need a ROS, or its the old lots which have ambiguity due to the LLA, so you need a RoS.

Using a bad description for a deed of trust was literally a learning discussion I just had with a tech, talking about how the attorney/estate manager doing the trust likely has no idea what a legal description actually describes. The land owners don't either. So who involved with a transfer to a trust is competent to review the legal descriptions? Answer= No one. since there was no title company involved, there is no county review and there is no surveyor involved. Who is on the hook to fix it? Who the heck knows... But its likely not a Title Company.

Mikey Mueller, PLS9076
Sonoma County

If the land was successfully conveyed to the trust via the old description, that doesn't make the old parcels compliant again. Private Land in CA can not be subdivided via deed, and, well, while it is introducing a potential cloud by using the old descriptions, I don't recall the law saying that you must use the new compliant legals to successfully transfer title. However, whether title was transferred successfully is not up to us to decide. First indication will be seeing what the title company is willing to insure.

I think you may be right that one is on the hook for an RS either way, because surveyor is not sure which lines are indicative of current title, due to ambiguity. If our task is to show locations, a surveyor may need to show both. Document the findings, including the fact that tile and compliance matters are not clear. In some counties the county surveyor office will place a statement on an RS that this filing does not mean that land shown is compliant for building purposes.

If the owner wants the surveyor to assist him in the development and permitting process, I would charge an additional fee. Companies out there charge significant fees to walk their clients through permitting processes. Surveyor should not be expected to do it for free.

"Even with relatively low land values."

I had a "shirttail" uncle who was foreman of a ranch in the 1920s. One Christmas, the owner of the ranch offer Uncle Calvin up to 100 acres of the ranch for $100 an acre. Uncle Calvin got so mad he almost punched the owner. "No land will EVER be worth that much!'

The owner was Douglas Fairbanks and the land is now known as Ranch Santa Fe. That $10,000 would have been worth something in the neighborhood of $100,000,000 today.

NEVER proceed based on the "value" of the and. You have no idea what it's really worth.

One thing to consider about your OP Jim is the trigger for a RoS is also ambiguity, 8762(b)(3) IE if a reasonable person would say there is a different solution for those boundaries, you also need to file to explain which position you took.

§8762(b)(3) refers to alternate locations of "...lines...shown on any subdivision map..." There's no ambiguity regarding the location of Lots 15 and 16, and §8762 doesn't pertain to SMA compliance, so in my opinion I can map -- and even monument -- those lots without needing to file a ROS.

Jim did not state how much of the $3,000 fee to record a R/S was county fee versus his cost.

County fees are about $1,200.00, the rest is my time to set monuments and draft the ROS.

Good point Jim!
I have always read that one a little looser and considered the existence of said lines being a characteristic to be considered.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

+2 on that Jim

provide the services requested by the person(s) paying the bill

In the original post, Jim states, “A Certificate of Compliance for Lot Line Adjustment is recorded”. Knowing Jim, that statement falls within four sigma.
That being said, keep the following in mind when dealing with the plethora of jurisdictions in the State and the plethora of policies and procedures for processing lot line adjustments.
In some jurisdictions, the lot line adjustment document is also the certificate of compliance. In others, the “Lot Line Adjustment – Resolution” (my jurisdiction) is only the approval by the jurisdiction to move forward and “properly execute” the lot line adjustment. When properly executed certificate of compliances are recorded for the resultant parcels. In my neck of the prairie, it is not uncommon for the owners to record said Resolution, but not record the other documents; e.g., transfer deed, reconveyance of trust, et cetera. Also, it is not uncommon for the owners to change their minds after the approval and not move forward with executing the adjustment. A third situation shows us conveyances down the road where, Owner A uses the lot line adjustment description “Lot 5 together with X feet of Lot 4” and Owner B use the description “Lot 4”. Hmmm? At this point, the donkey behind Door No. 4 is looking pretty good. I know, I know, there were only three doors. Moving on.
If the 2003 recorded document is actually the certificate of compliance, then the 2010 document description appears to have been recorded in error. If not,…
Oh, and to answer Jim’s original question…if I understand it correctly…the line between Lot 15 and Lot 16 no longer exists, if the lot line adjustment is properly executed.
Jim: If the situation is in my prairie, please give me a call.

the line between Lot 15 and Lot 16 no longer exists

It may no longer exist as a title line, but it remains in the record and can be marked on the ground, in this instance without requiring a ROS because the block was shown to be record dimensions in 2004.

If the situation is in my prairie, please give me a call.

It's in Yolo, but thanks for the offer!

Jim Frame wrote: Wed Apr 05, 2023 5:25 am It may no longer exist as a title line, but it remains in the record and can be marked on the ground

I see where you’re going with this now. I agree with you and I’ve done this before as well.

Deed says “lot 3 and south 5 feet of lot 4”

I mark the previously mapped 4 corners of lot 4 and the neighbors figure out the 5 feet on their own. File a corner record. I’m not establishing new lines, just record corners which may now be witness monuments to adjusted parcel corners.