abandonment at "tee" intersection

[falcon]

Good afternoon fellow Surveyors,

I had an interesting question posed to me today. A local agency is considering abandoning an old, unused road Right-of-Way. They would be keeping all of the roads that "tee" off of it to one direction (it is one side of a larger subdivision, so it doesn't have true crossings, only tees). There were lots along the other side, now purchased by another entity so both sides would get to the CL.

What happens at each of the little "tee" intersections? It seems weird that it would "attach" to the road emanating from there just because there is no privately held lot, as the intention is to abandon the entire strip. Would the corner lots get a little "L" shaped area? That seems weird too.

Any case law or reference materials that can support an answer?

Thanks, Falcon.

Edit: I looked through my copy of Wilson's Easements and Reversions, and didn't see this particular case discussed.

[Jim Frame]

Would the corner lots get a little "L" shaped area?

That makes sense to me, but I have no reference to provide.

In the attached image, the dashed lines and hatching represent the areas that would revert to the adjacent lots under this scenario.

t.jpg

[wingding]

Brown's 7th ed. could be your reference

brown8.5.PNG

[CB6753]

Sorry for being a little late on this comment, but here goes.
1. The modern term is "relinquishment" instead of "abandonment". This is because a private individual may abandon a right by non-use, but the government cannot lose its rights except by a formal action by the legislature (city council, board, etc.). The formal action is a relinquishment
2. Resolutions of relinquishment are in the form of a quitclaim deed (all right, title, and interest). That is, it doesn't say who will receive the property rights, just that the agency no longer has any claim. While the adjoiners have the right to claim the abutting street, it is not the job of the agency to say where any of the new lines will be (i.e, are the new lines on the projection of the existing property lines, or radial to the street centerline?). That is for the private owners and their land surveyors to determine, not the agency.

[kwilson]

I have seen some abandonments/vacations that worked out well and some that did not. In the case where the lots and streets are consistent the typical method of extending the side lines to the centerline works. I have felt comfortable establishing the boundary using that method.

In another situation the City involved had their own staff determine how the vacated portions of the street would revert to the adjacent owners as there were some lines where it was not clear how the reversions could work. They then used a document to transfer title to the adjacent owners. I’m going by memory here so I cannot remember what type of instrument was used or if a public hearing was involved. But everything worked out very well because the city took the lead. Now I assume one of the individual adjacent owners if not satisfied could have filed a suit against the city but that did not happen.

In one case I was approached by a landowner wherein an adjacent road was vacated but it was at an intersection with odd angles and so it was not clear how the land would revert. They were already in a lawsuit with another neighbor over the issue. The County had simply filed the vacation but did not provide any direction on reversionary lines.

[marchenko]

The corner lots would get the part of the T that is overlapped by the street being abandoned.

Regarding terminology it depends on who the political subdivision is , what their common practice and local codes call it, and also what instrument is being used to abandon or vacate. For example If a subdivision map is being used then the proper terminology is abandon 66434(g). If the local code uses the term general vacation or summary vacation, then that is what it is.