Lot Line Adjustments: Review of Legal Descriptions

[Olin Edmundson]

Section 66412 (d) of the Subdivision Map Act contains the following language:

"A local agency or advisory agency shall limit its review and approval to a determination of whether or not the parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment will conform to the local general plan, any applicable coastal plan, and zoning and building ordinances."

Given the very specific limitations described above, do jurisdictions have any authority whatsoever to be reviewing legal descriptions prepared to effectuate Lot Line Adjustments?

[Lee Hixson]

They shouldn't have. Period.

[dmi]

Yes, they do. I have asked the same question myself. The answer is in reading the law in a comprehensive fashion and not just latching on to a code section here and there. The lot line adjustment is an exception to the SMA. The SMA spells out specifically that the local agency has the decision making power with respect to subdivisions.....

[Warren Smith]

The local ordinances relating to the review of descriptions by a licensed land surveyor stems from the planners' lack of expertise in discerning what constitutes a proper description of the proposed resultant parcels. I don't think that is a function worth delegating - given some of the initial submittals I have seen. An additional set of eyes can be a good thing - relatively cheap insurance.

[Ian Wilson]

" The lot line adjustment is an exception to the SMA. The SMA spells out specifically that the local agency has the decision "

The very meaning of exception is that it is outside the purview of the SMA.

Having said that, I agree with Warren. Having another surveyor, as long as it IS a surveyor, is insurance.

Where I have a problem is when an agency begins to dictate what sort of description I can write.

[Olin Edmundson]

Yes, they do. I have asked the same question myself. The answer is in reading the law in a comprehensive fashion and not just latching on to a code section here and there. The lot line adjustment is an exception to the SMA. The SMA spells out specifically that the local agency has the decision making power with respect to subdivisions.....

The only place is see the SMA discussing the subject of Lot Line Adjustments is 66412 (d). While they are exempting Lot Line Adjustments from the SMA, they are also taking the time to address the limitations that can be put on them. They could make them exempt with one simple sentence, period. But there are five sentences total in 66412 (d) and the one I quoted above, which is very specific, is one of them. I don't quite see this as picking and choosing snippets of code to make a case. The intent seems very clear, am I missing something?

[Olin Edmundson]

The local ordinances relating to the review of descriptions by a licensed land surveyor stems from the planners' lack of expertise in discerning what constitutes a proper description of the proposed resultant parcels. I don't think that is a function worth delegating - given some of the initial submittals I have seen. An additional set of eyes can be a good thing - relatively cheap insurance.

I absolutely agree, no argument here, a second set of eyes is great. But how can review of descriptions be a part of the Lot Line Adjustment process when 66412 (d) specifically limits what local jurisdictions can review? When a second set of eyes morphs into dictating format, method and style is where problems can occur in certain cases.

[Ian Wilson]

Olin:

The key is that the LLA requires a submittal to the local agency. Usually, in the ordinance governing the LLA Application process, there is something that requires legal descriptions for the adjusted parcels. That's the hook. Not in the SMA, but in the local ordinance.

Ian

[Olin Edmundson]

Ian

Doesn't State law trump local ordinance? In theory, are agencies whom review legals acting in violation of State Law.

[Mr. Smith]

The way I see the code for Lot Line Adjustments - The controlling authority, as a rule, can not force changes on your legals,
however, I appreciate a review because I make a lot of mistakes.

Brian

[dedkad]

The agency can review legal descriptions because they need to confirm that the revised lots conform to local zoning code and other codes. If the code requires minimum frontage widths, depth-to-width ratios, minimum square footage, etc., then these dimension need to be verified by reviewing the legal descriptions. If there is a question about location of a lot line in relation to existing buildings, then they can review a legal description to confirm there is adequate setback to conform with building code. That is just a few examples where the agency has the authority to review legal descriptions for a LLA.

[land butcher]

With regard to the recent legals my son has submitted to local agencies they make so many unnecessary changes they should just write the legal themselves and sign it. My son has signed legals that the end product he had very little input into but he holds the liability, that's just wrong. I have come to the conclusion that these govt checkers have never had a legal desc writing course or read any book on it.

[Olin Edmundson]

The agency can review legal descriptions because they need to confirm that the revised lots conform to local zoning code and other codes. If the code requires minimum frontage widths, depth-to-width ratios, minimum square footage, etc., then these dimension need to be verified by reviewing the legal descriptions. If there is a question about location of a lot line in relation to existing buildings, then they can review a legal description to confirm there is adequate setback to conform with building code. That is just a few examples where the agency has the authority to review legal descriptions for a LLA.

That seems like a stretch, these zoning matters would have been reviewed with the submittal of a Lot Line Adjustment Map. If just be bearings and distances were being looked at for typos, that would be one thing, but from this particular experience I am now having and from other gripes you hear about, I get the impression that far more than these basic dimensions are being scrutinized. Don't forget, the Title Co will be looking at things when they put together the deeds, then the Assessor will again be confirming these numbers. Please excuse my frustrastion, not trying to make a blanket statement to all those who review. But this current situation I've got is horrendous. The legal checker engineer guy is insisting on a full meets and bounds description around the resultant parcel with closing calcs instead of my description by dividing line method. These are bigger parcels and there is one particular line far away from the action where the record is all screwed up. No one cares about this area. But there is no reasoning with the checker engineer dued. It's forcing a line of agreement in this problem area and a fully resolved survey around the parcel costing thousands upon thousands of dollars between survey costs, attorneys, and time wasted as the client is carrying a mortgage on these expensive investment properties and can't sell them until the adjustment happens. We've gotta get things under control here. At the very least, checkers should be required to be Licensed Surveyos like newly appointed County Surveyors.

[LS_8750]

Is this plan checker practicing land surveying without a license?

[Olin Edmundson]

Is this plan checker practicing land surveying without a license?

Pre-82 Civil, but I suspect practicing out of his area of competency

The other problem with this ultra-liberal interpretation of the SMA (if you could call it that) is that unlike Records of Survey where, if a disagreement between the Surveyor and CS exists a note can be placed on the map without forcing an alternate boundary resolution, no such provision exists here. The submitting survey is at the mercy of the checker.

[LS_8750]

The checker is requesting a metes and bounds description, which will necessitate additional survey work beyond the scope of your LLA, and which is not necessary.

Looks like the checker is trying to apply conditions to your LLA, which is a no no per 66412 (d).

[kwilson]

This is a problem and it will continue to grow. Everyone thinks they know better than you how to write a legal description because they went to college and took a surveying course. I also get weird corrections from PGE when I prepare a legal description for one of their easements. One time I had 5 sets of corrections on a legal. Since then I have been playing hardball with the checker and make sure:

1. He is or is under the direction of an LS. If I have a problem I talk to the LS directly.
2. If I disagree I explain clearly why.
3. If I can go along with their ticky-tack requests without harming the legal I usually will (but I may write them a note with a reference).

The worst one was when I had to "write" a legal description for a Certificate of Compliance for a single parcel just because according to the City, it was not a legal parcel. So, of course, I copied verbatim the legal description by which my client acquired title. In that description an old stake was referenced. The legal description checker said I had to change the description because the stake no longer exists! I took a paragraph to explain to him that unless a new parcel is being created you don't change a legal description (unless you need to correct an obvious mistake).

[E_Page]

I disagree that the description must contain dimensions to verify compliance with local zoning. An exhibit drawing can show the dimensional interpretation of the description in an easy to follow format. Altering the description to include specific dimensions when the intent is for the boundary to be controlled by specifically described lines or features serves only to add ambiguity to the description.

Any description that includes dimensions as an actual or apparent controlling element is inherently ambiguous. Not necessarily patently ambiguous because the geometric figure might close just fine, but when a surveyor attempts to apply the description to the ground, the likelihood of dimensions as measured by that surveyor conflicting with his or her measured location of features also mentioned as controlling elements is pretty high. In most cases, if the dimensions contained in the description and those of a following surveyor are all made with care using modern equipment and methods, the latent discrepancies will be small to the point of being negligible or nearly so.

The more complex the network of measurements at either end of that process, or the more disparate the equipment, methods, or care employed, the more significant those discrepancies are likely to be and the more likely some yahoo, either surveyor, landowner, or agency employee will misinterpret the intent behind the description and screw up the boundary in a retracement.

If the intent is to define the new lines according to specific features which are capable of clear & complete description, then the description should be written with regard to those. If the intent is to place a new corners per dimensions defined by the measurements of the surveyor helping to facilitate the LLA, then permanent monuments should be set and clearly described. If dimensions must be added, either for clarity or to aid the ignorant (improperly granted some authority over approval of the LLA), then they should be included in a way that makes clear the controlling effect of the features the dimensions go from or to.

Of course the biggest danger when providing descriptions that include both features as controlling elements and dimensions as supplemental info is that some untrained knucklehead (licensed or not) at the agency, or more likely at the title company or law office where the deeds will be prepared will decide that the description is too wordy and edit it to reflect only the dimensions (the only part they think they understand and the only info they think is meaningful), thus losing the true intent altogether.

[Anthony Maffia]

Planners shouldn't be allowed to review legal descriptions, only a PLS or a LSIT directly supervised by a PLS.

No m&b descr beats: Lot 2 together with the westerly 10' of Lot 3