Successive Lot Line Adjustments and PM Quartering

[Scott]

DWoolley wrote: "successive lot line adjustments to circumvent the "four or fewer lots" provision in the Subdivision Map Act"

I can't find it, but I thought there was something in the SMA to prevent "quartering" land with successive Parcel Maps to avoid having to process a Final Map.
I remember it discussing subsequent owners and their relationship to the previous PM subdivider of the land.

I do not remember anything like that at all anywhere that would prevent successive lot line adjustments?

[No_Target]

Successive Lot Line Adjustments were upheld by Napa Co. v Sierra Club

https://www.californialandusedevelopmen ... bdivision.

Interested in hearing more about the PM quartering as it was once very common in my area of practice.

[DWoolley]

The "no more than four parcel limitation" is black letter law in California Subdivision Map Act (SMA). Anything more than four lots included in a LLA is subverting the SMA - this includes mergers i.e. removing lines that will result in four or fewer parcels. The California Attorney General has, on multiple occasions, provided guidance for reading of the SMA.

The California Attorney General wrote:

“The reasoning of our prior opinion applies to the question presented here. The purposes of the Map Act in securing orderly community development [citation removed] would be seriously undermined if a subdivider could avoid tentative and final mapping obligations by the successive acquisition, quartering, and sale of contiguous parcels. The effect would be to allow the creation of subdivisions, through phased quartering and disposition, without adequate consideration of subdivision standards and broader concerns for community development. That the subdivider sells off his quartered parcels before acquiring another for further division should not avoid the Legislature’s concern for greater scrutiny of larger developments. We have previously expressed our view, supported by the courts, that the provisions of the Act are to be “liberally construed to require the highest possible standards for orderly community development” [citation removed] in order “to prevent circumvention of its several goals and purposes.” [citation removed]

The same logic must apply for successive lot line adjustments.

Alternatively, some agencies, typically without staff surveyors (most LLAs are not signed by City Surveyor), process multiple LLAs rather than file a parcel map. The multiple lot line adjustment process outlined in Sierra Club v. Napa County Board of Supervisors requires the applicant to complete one document through to recordation before we can complete the next document - taking years to execute. This process, besides being shady, when completed as described in the case should be prohibitive in a timeline. Remember, Napa was an argument against the development and multiple LLAs had to be ruled on for another reason. In my reading of the Napa case, I do not see it countering the AG opinions on 4x4s.

Conclusion:

The Napa case, like all case law, is specific to the facts of that case and does not apply indiscriminately. I would argue the burden is upon the applicant to persuade the agency the application is not subverting the SMA. A lot line adjustment is discretionary and the agency does not need to grant the application. In my case, we do not accept successive lot line adjustments of lot line adjustments because it puts the agency at risk because we cannot condition a lot line adjustment - which includes bonds for offsite improvements. We also do not accept mergers of more than four parcels with a LLA (black letter law). We cannot condition building permits with bonds. The developer walks away - which we have all seen - and leaving the agency on the hook with a hole in the ground and half built improvements.

I understand a developer trying to be clever. I do not understand a professional land surveyor helping facilitate illegal development (technically, I do understand, it is frog/scorpion "in my nature" thing). I also understand planners recommending this process because they are not familiar with the nuances of the SMA - I do not understand land surveyors allowing planners to make the determination as to the authority or legality.

For those unacquainted, the legal process is to file a parcel map. In the event the developer is merely merging more than four parcels for a building permit that will not require conditions the agency can/should waive the tentative map and utilize a Subdividers Certificate to avoid the signature process - very expeditious, legal and has the benefit of a field survey (unless the jurisdiction allows for record data parcel map, gag, a discussion for another day).

DWoolley