California Surveyors Forums

Hello Experts,

Has anyone recorded a map where you have multiple lots sharing one lot number but not touching each other?

Thank you,
Marty

No, each lot needs to have a unique identifier.
I don't recall at the moment if the subdivision map act allows non contiguous lots, I don't think it is likely, as I have never seen one created on a map.

Attached is a recorded parcel map where Parcel 17 is in two parts with the lot tie symbol connecting them; however, in this case, there is an easement ROW for a utility that both portions of 17 abut.

do you have a book and page recoding data and the county for this map? I am assuming LA county, judging by the blue border dots? Hopefully there is more context there.
Theoretically, non contiguous parcels are possible in very similar situations, when an existing parcel is split into two by a fee road dedication, for example.
Parcel 17 has a gross and a net, so it is possible there is more to the story which we don't know until we see the map in it's entirety. Net is usually listed when a portion of the land is dedicated as a road easement.

If the map uses “blocks”, a rare map plan convention these days, a map can use a lot number more than once provide they are in seperate “blocks”. The legal would include the block identifier to distinguish the two seperate lots.

Might want to read section 66424 of the Subdivision Map Act

Randy Mayer wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 10:18 am Might want to read section 66424 of the Subdivision Map Act

I have read it several times and I do not agree that it applies to my question. Section 66424 defines what is a subdivision and what is a contiguous unit and that to be included within a subdivision, units must be contiguous. Meaning, to include within a subdivision map, two separate units must be touching or separated by ROW, etc. This section does not define what constitutes a legal lot.

I'm asking about one unit of land (parcel, lot, condo unit, etc.) that is split from another part of itself. Is there something somewhere that says it cannot be done?

It's likely not a statutory restriction, as much as it flies in the face of uniquely identifying specific parcels of real estate. A description of Lot 1 as shown on a filed map would convey what is so shown on said map.

If circumstances provide a reason to utilize the same designation for non adjacent parcels, then it would be permissible.

Does Save Mount Diablo v Contra Costa County has any parallels to your situation?

One parcel was later separated by two intersecting fee condemnations for right of way and the owner tried to claim he now had four parcels because they physically did not touch each other.

The court ruled it was still one parcel despite the fee condemnations.