Lot Line Adjustment One Owner

[kwilson]

A client owns two lots. He wants to build a garage but the location will cross the lot line that separates his two parcels. He wants to do a lot line adjustment to move the line so that the garage will not cross the property line and have the proper setback. We can get the approval document from the City recorded (a document that describes the new lot lines and states that this lot line adjustment has been approved). However, since there is only one owner, there will be no grant deed since he cannot grant to himself. So the assessor map will not change until a conveyance takes place. Should the city assume that the lot line has changed and approve the garage location?

The parcels are already in a family trust so the idea to convey from community property to a trust is not feasible.

[Warren Smith]

Yes, the City can issue a building permit for the garage based on approval of the lot line adjustment application. Presumably, Building Department reviewed the application for the purpose intended. Issuance of the permit constitutes recognition of the approved resulting lot line. The Site Plan should indicate the new lot dimensions for the record, with a reference to the approval document.

[Ian Wilson]

Ask for a Certificate of Compliance for the two adjusted lots and record the CofC. Boom! Recorded descriptions and no violations...

BTW - At Alameda County, we have started filing the Certificates of Compliance on behalf of the applicant so that they don't get "forgot". It's now part of the LLA Application/Approval process....

[Derek_9672]

I like the idea of the certificates of compliance, but what is the issue with just recording quitclaim deeds ? Usually the reviewing agency will require some language i.e. "the purpose of this deed is...pursuant to LLA-xxxx..." to be included in the deed. This will tie the quitclaim deed to the approved LLA and introduces the descriptions of the new legal lots into the record.

[David Kendall]

I like the idea of the certificates of compliance, but what is the issue with just recording quitclaim deeds ?

You might get some static at the clerk’s office trying to record quitclaim deeds to yourself

[CBarrett]

I tried looking this up but got lost in code. Where does it say that you can not write a grant deed to yourself, with a different legal description, as in perfecting deeds?

I was looking in here:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... .&article=

[Mike Mueller]

I am curious what the law actually says also.

I have seen clients execute grant deeds to themselves when they are getting separate document numbers for parcels that were lumped at the time of sale.

Is this a situation where the "can't grant easements over yourself" morphed into a generalized practice of no grant deeds?

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[kwilson]

City will be recording the Lot Line Adjustment approval document but planning will not accept that as conclusive evidence that the lot line has moved. They want the County to recognize the new lot line and I am guessing that they want the Assessor Map to reflect the change. I think I will contact a land attorney I know on this one.

[kwilson]

Attorney says he has recorded grant deeds to same owner. He states the Subdivision Map Act states that is the way to do it. Which it does. I just don't think the writers/legislators had in mind a lot line adjustment involving a single owner. However, who is harmed when the grant is to one's self to satisfy the bureauocrats? So I think that is what we will do. If ever the property is sold to someone else, we just use the new legals.

An interesting question came up and I have heard both ways for 30 years. When the grant occurs should it describe only the sliver(s) of land that transfer or should the entire new legal be used.

In this situation where there is only one owner, I would simplify it and have the owners grant to themselves using the new legals. But I will be deferring to the attorney and I believe he may want grants with the sliver legals followed by 2 more deeds using the new legals.

The process is like riding a roller coaster.

[Scott]

1st line up title by deeding the transfer parcel then record the new legals on perfecting deeds. The Title Company should be doing this.

I believe the view that "granting to oneself" is wrong comes from the law's the definition of a Grant Deed being between "two persons", same as easements. It is not against the law, but the transfer might not be valid because does not include "two persons".

I believe Warren was saying on another thread, that they would temporarily deed to a proxy (Warren in this case) and then immediately back to the true owners.

[hellsangle]

I believe Warren was saying on another thread, that they would temporarily deed to a proxy (Warren in this case) and then immediately back to the true owners.

That is what used to be done. The owner would deed to title company and immediately thereafter the title company would deed to owner. That satisfies the two different people transfer.

With the possibility of hazardous materials being present on a parcel, the title industry would not want their fingerprint on any parcel!

[DWoolley]

I tried looking this up but got lost in code. Where does it say that you can not write a grant deed to yourself, with a different legal description, as in perfecting deeds?

I was looking in here:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... .&article=

I have been navigating some complex Subdivision Map Act issues recently. I have been working with a knowledgeable DLA Piper attorney - I would highly recommend him, Andrew Bradley - specializing in land use and SMA. The attorney was sending me various cases to advocate his clients position. In clearing title, the owners need to execute conveyances and reconveyances.

I asked him, very specifically, if there was anything that legally prohibited a conveyance to yourself. He paused and said, "No. We do it all of the time [mergers and certificates of compliance]. In fact, there is a citation we include on the document to prevent the client from being reassessed". I then asked him if he had a citation, he said "no, not off hand, because there would not likely be a permissive law that states the obvious". I asked him provide a reference if he found one, nothing has arrived in my inbox. This does not definitively answer the question without a citation, but one more weight on the scale.

Based on this recent experience, I think it may be legal and there is no law for the reasons he stated.

DWoolley

[David Kendall]

This is all very interesting discussion and good to know for future deed reformation efforts. I never had to do this so have not considered it this deeply.

Still, I stand by my statement that I don’t believe the proper mechanism is a quitclaim. The definition of relinquishing any interest to oneself seems awkward. I suppose that it is technically possible.

I believe that my preference for this OP situation would be the certificate of compliance. There will be a cost associated with the transfers, even without reassessment (which is important for us to note and consider). COC at least gets you some bang for your buck and could reduce future liability.

With the new housing fees on the deeds, I have had a client balk at unnecessary filings, even as a prudent and recommended maneuver in order to clear title issues.

[Derek_9672]

Still, I stand by my statement that I don’t believe the proper mechanism is a quitclaim. The definition of relinquishing any interest to oneself seems awkward. I suppose that it is technically possible.

Riddle v. Harmon is a good case on the topic of enfeoffing oneself. "Handing oneself a dirt clod is ungainly."

https://law.justia.com/cases/california ... 2/524.html

For the original question, it seems to me the local jurisdiction should have a mechanism in place to accomplish this specific end, i.e. LLA between two lots under one owner. kwilson cannot be the first one trying to execute such a thing in that locale. In Mendocino County, we record a "Lot Line Adjustment Quitclaim Deed" to execute the approved LLA. I don't know that the title of that instrument is perfect, but it's what the public agency has accepted as functional. It sounds like the City in this instance has had issues with follow through on LLAs and doesn't want to issue a building permit without certainty.

[DWoolley]

David Kendall:

I believe you are correct. I do not think quit claim deeds are usually appropriate. A quit claim deed has a specific "...interest, if any..." thought attached to it. I have used them in the handful of boundary line agreements, because the line was unclear and therefore, "interest, if any" applies.

I am interested in any additional information.

DWoolley

[David Kendall]

Riddle v. Harmon is a good case on the topic of enfeoffing oneself

Nice vocab tip! There are several good suggestions of ways to accomplish this goal in that summary along with some dramatic legal language.

Thank you for posting this case

[CBarrett]

I tried looking this up but got lost in code. Where does it say that you can not write a grant deed to yourself, with a different legal description, as in perfecting deeds?

I was looking in here:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... .&article=

I have been navigating some complex Subdivision Map Act issues recently. .......

Thanks so much for that information!!!!!!

[Norm Green]

At the City where I worked If there was a LLa with only one owner then we would record a one party deed with a statement in the deed that said it was for lot line adjustment purposes. The City Attorney approved of this. Along with the deed or deeds we would record certificates of compliance and modifications to the deeds of trust where appropriate.
I do not believe it is correct to file the certificate of compliance without filing the deed first. The SMA requires that a deed is filed. I remember there was a problem with this in Orange County in the late eighties or early nineties where the title companies were putting an exception in their policies but I am unclear on the details. I hope this helps.

[Robert Martin]

Recording Lot Line Adjustments (aka: Boundary Line Adjustments (BLA)) with one owner is something we do often in Siskiyou County, and in the incorporated areas, I probably help process 10 per year. All Lot Mergers are also processed as BLAs, which are also one owner. All BLAs are recorded by one of the two local escrow companies (no individual is allowed to record the deed per the conditions of approval of the BLA). The escrow company always records the "Approved BLA Document" from the County or City, and the very next deed it the "Grant Deed" from the owner to the same owner... no problems here. I'm sorry for you guys where a relatively simple process seems to be made difficult for you.