COC - One lot or two???

[David Kendall]

Does issuance of a building permit constitute a legal merger of the two lots?

Municipal land subdivision creates ten 50 x 110 lots in 1900. Majority are occupied by one home per lot

In 1902 the original subdivider sold lot 1 to a fellow at the beginning of July then sold lot 2 to the same fellow at the end of October. He immediately resold both lots together and they have been conveyed together ever since.

Lot 1 has a duplex and a garage converted to storage units. Lot 2 is mostly unimproved but is used as a yard and parking spot for the Lot 1 residence.

The county planner told me off the record that the original conveyances could warrant this situation being construed as 2 legal lots.

The city planner is saying that since there were building permits issued that considered Lots 1 and 2 as being one parcel, the issuance of the building permits constitutes “real property which has been approved for development” and it is one parcel, referencing Government Code §§ 66499.34 and 66499.35

Can someone provide legal precedent or case law for this? I would like to have my ducks in order when I shell out for a COC.

[mpallamary]

No it does not, A merger is a defined action.

[hellsangle]

I would suggest your client apply for Certificates of Compliance if you have chain of title proving separate conveyances.

One caveat could be . . . if the home straddles the line, in some jurisdictions they consider the owner's action of building over the lot line as a voluntary merger. Again, Certificate of Compliance may settle that issue.

(see Gardner v Sonoma County about ancient subdivisions)

Good luck, Dave

[mpallamary]

As to the voluntary merger, that can be addressed by a lot tie agreement. That is why I sent those over to consider. I developed the format for thos in San Diego,

[David Kendall]

I would suggest your client apply for Certificates of Compliance if you have chain of title proving separate conveyances.

One caveat could be . . . if the home straddles the line, in some jurisdictions they consider the owner's action of building over the lot line as a voluntary merger. Again, Certificate of Compliance may settle that issue.

(see Gardner v Sonoma County about ancient subdivisions)

Good luck, Dave

I sent them the two deeds with the initial request.

The home and garage are entirely on lot 1

What recourse would I have in this case for receiving a COC that required a parcel map?

[mpallamary]

As to the voluntary merger, that can be addressed by a lot tie agreement. That is why I sent those over to consider. I developed the format for these in San Diego,

[mpallamary]

When was the condition created? There are rules as to what they can ask for. If, when the "division" occurred, they cannot ask for contemporary requirements. They can only ask for compliance with the rules that existed at the time (with a few exceptions).

[Anthony Maffia]

Can the planner provide a copy of the building permit? If not, and if the house doesn't straddle the line, then I'd argue the permit was for that lot.

[David Kendall]

I have a new one....

COC issued in 1986 on an a lot referenced by APN. I believe it is a clerical error but the parcel number is clear and legible. I have reviewed the historic AP map in order to identify the parcel in question. The basis for my assertion of a clerical error is a deed reference found on the COC where the deed does not apply to the parcel number referenced. It does apply to a nearby parcel on a different AP block but with the same parcel number

For example: These would be APN 111-221-003 and 111-222-003 where deed Book 555 page 777 describes the 111-221-003 and the COC indicates 111-222-003 is a valid legal parcel based on the information found in said deed

The client wants to cash in on this and sell off the two lots separately when it is likely he was only intended to have one.... and who wouldn't?

Is a COC apparently issued in error legally binding?

[CBarrett]

Deed reference is a more secure evidence than an APN. Scrivener error in an APN shouldn't invalidate the document, or change it's intent.
According to random google answers about whether a typo can invalidate a document.
Summary of opinions I see by people who claim to be lawyers in the internet say that if the intent can be ascertained from the rest of the document, a typo does not change it.

If the client knows that a COC was not issued for his property and wants to take advantage of a typo in a document, I am thinking that he may be attempting fraud.

[David Kendall]

if the intent can be ascertained from the rest of the document, a typo does not change it.

If the client knows that a COC was not issued for his property and wants to take advantage of a typo in a document, I am thinking that he may be attempting fraud.

Good point about the intent! The COC were performed on several adjacent parcels by a previous owner so I can understand the confusion.

So this guy could be an innocent bystander but I have now informed him that I believe the certificate contains a clerical error and was likely not intended to apply to his parcel.

I'll leave the rest up to the attorneys....

Thank you for the response!

[CBarrett]

I didn't really help much, but you're welcome. Very interesting question.

[falcon]

No it does not, A merger is a defined action.

Mr. Pallamary, how does your client "Undo" this lot tie in the future if they want to? Or is this a permanent merger?

[mpallamary]

Time permitting, I will review closer.

[dedkad]

No it does not, A merger is a defined action.

Mr. Pallamary, how does your client "Undo" this lot tie in the future if they want to? Or is this a permanent merger?

Typically, the lot tie agreement is written so that it can be undone once whatever condition necessitated the lot tie is corrected. Some instances where the agency I worked for used a lot tie agreement included when a building straddled a property line or when a parking garage on one lot was needed to meet parking requirements for a development on an adjacent lot. Not all agencies have the appetite for a lot tie agreement and might lean towards requiring a merger instead.