5 parcel - Parcel Map?

[MSchlump]

66424.6 (a) allows for a designated remainder "that portion which is not divided for the purpose of sale, lease, or financing"

66424.6 (d) states "A designated remainder or any omitted parcel may subsequently be sold without any further requirement of the filing of a parcel map or final map, but the local agency may require a certificate of compliance or conditional certificate of compliance."

Confusing, but I understand the situation it was intended for “the farmer’s wife” however on parcel maps I have seen a half acre unimproved remainder parcel on a parcel map with 4 other lots of similar size appears to be a 5th lot. How (by what statue or code) is the remainder parcel restricted? Why don't all parcel maps with enough acreage have 4 lots and a remainder?

General opinion is the remainder parcel is not a legal lot, although if it was the only part left from a legal subdivision of a legal lot I do not see why not, other than it should have been created with a Final Map. So to develop the lot an agency would require a COC, which it must issue. The agency could issue a conditional COC, requiring all conditions that would have been included for a final map. This seems like a misuse of the remainder parcel on a parcel map. It appears that a remainder parcel from a parcel map could be sold and another parcel map filed on it, if the new owner was not the original subdivider as defined in 66423.

[hellsangle]

Interesting question.

As minor subdivisions are few and far . . . I had to break out my SMA manual . . . and refresh my brain.

According to CEB Subdivision Map Act/Process . . . looks like a Certificate of Compliance is required . . . which, as you say, could be "conditioned".
(See Chapter Three: 3.3, 3.4 & 3.5 of CEB's SMA manual.) "Pescosolido v Smith (1983) 142 CA3d 964 (intent to sell in future sufficient to require compliance with Map Act" - CEB. Also, 77 Ops Cal Atty Gen 185 (1994) - CEB.

Sounds like a Final Map would have made things easier in the future? But probably costly at the time?

Stay safe!

Phil - Sonoma

[mpallamary]

I suggest looking up the "legislative record" as to the intent of the law. They call it "legislative intent."

[PLS7393]

I believe if and when that 5th parcel is legalized, the government agency shall require a final map since that is the 5th parcel from the original parcel.
This came about 10 years ago with the concept of 4x4'ing parcels to skirt the law.

The government agency did not do the homeowner any benefits by allowing this, because it is going to cost a lot more in the long run since a second subdivision map will be required.

[MSchlump]

Pescosolido v Smith helps clarify by stating “the ultimate purpose”

AG opinion 94-304 helps clarify the original intent of 66424.6

AG opinion 75-108 addresses 4x4, although unless the opinion has been updated it appears a parcel of a parcel map can be further divided by parcel map if by a different owner and over a year after the original parcel map. It does not address the remainder parcel.

Based on 94-304 if I am understanding remainder parcel correctly:
A remainder parcel with four additional parcels on a parcel map is acceptable provided the subdivider intends to retain ownership of the parcel. They may develop the remainder parcel, which would require a COC, they cannot use the parcel as collateral for any type of loan. (Construction, conventional mortgage, reverse mortgage).

A remainder parcel with four additional parcels on a parcel map that is offered for sale or as collateral would require a conditional COC where the local agency should require a single parcel final map as a condition, to be sold, developed or financed.

A remainder parcel with four additional parcels on a parcel map that has been sold pursuit to 66426.6 (d) that applies for further division will require a final map regardless of the number of parcels being created.