Street Dedication Question

[everstudy]

We did a parcel map in the City of Fontana, County of Riverside, and submitted it with Parcel 1 and Parcels "A" and "B", "A" and "B" were shown as 'Dedicated Hereon'. At the first check, the City directed us to remove the labels Parcels "A" and "B" and replace them with the street names, which we did. In the owners certificate it states "The real property described below is dedicated as an easement for public purposes: XXXX Avenue and YYYY Avenue for street and public utility purposes as shown hereon" and the City accepted the dedication. The map recorded and the site was improved and now we're finishing up a post-construction ALTA Survey for Parcel 1 of the map and not the portions of that were dedicated). The title company, after their review of the ALTA is taking the position that Parcel 1 is the entire parcel map, including the portions dedicated, even though we show the limits of Parcel 1 with a solid line and its net acreage.

Am I wrong in thinking that the limits of Parcel 1 are as shown on the map and do not include the dedicated portions?

Thanks.

[mpallamary]

Can you post the map?

[everstudy]

Here you go

[Warren Smith]

The street dedication is an easement. The right of way line is used for setback purposes, but the fee ownership goes to the distinctive border.

[everstudy]

Warren,

Are you saying that the limits of Parcel 1 is the distinctive border and not the monumented solid line (excluding the dedications)?

Thanks.

[laveyb24]

I am in agreement with Mr. Warren Smith. The owner of Parcel 1 has fee ownership over the dedicated easement.

[Warren Smith]

everstudy,

It could be that the fee title goes to the centerline of Santa Ana Avenue. It depends on how (and whether in fee or as an easement) it was originally dedicated. If from the parent parcel as an easement, then the underlying ownership is what would remain if the street were vacated.

The title company is looking for coverage of the insured property. The dedication encumbers the portion as delineated.

By convention, subdivision maps show a distinctive border exclusive of previously dedicated rights of way. Unless they were offered and accepted in fee, this is not quite the limits of ownership. The local agency, in approving the subdivision, implicitly agrees to the filing of the map as shown, subject to the existing public right of way over which it has jurisdiction. This really only comes into play if a street is vacated. The presumption is that interior lot lines are extended to the centerline. It gets interesting with non-perpendicular angles, however.

This may be more than you were asking about, but public R/W is a subject covered under provisions of the Streets and Highways Code.

[dedkad]

By convention, subdivision maps show a distinctive border exclusive of previously dedicated rights of way. Unless they were offered and accepted in fee, this is not quite the limits of ownership. The local agency, in approving the subdivision, implicitly agrees to the filing of the map as shown, subject to the existing public right of way over which it has jurisdiction. This really only comes into play if a street is vacated. The presumption is that interior lot lines are extended to the centerline. It gets interesting with non-perpendicular angles, however.
.

When reviewing the maps, I take my cue from the legal description in the title report. If the legal description just has a lot/block description, then I would allow the boundary of the map to just include the limits of the lot and not encompass the street. If the legal description is a metes and bounds that includes the street ROW, then the boundary needs to include the street ROW.