"PROPOSED DIVISION OF LAND" PLAT

DJLS · Post by **DJLS** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:33 am

Merry Christmas to all.
Got a question and seeking some opinions, My client purchased four parcels of land that was created by an approved "Proposed Division of Land" plat No. 181-022-5 in March of 1968 by the County of San Diego. In his original grant deed each lot was described separately but appeared as one assessor's parcel no on the tax maps, he later had the assessor create a individual APN for each lot. One of the lots is developed (his residence) and the others vacant. He originally purchased one title insurance policy for all the lots and schedule "A" matched the grant deed. Now the title company and his attorney are questioning the legality of the subdivision and his ability to purchase separate policies for the individual parcels. Knowing that the SMA allowed this type of subdivision prior to 1972 and the local agency approved the plat, does his attorney and title officer have legitimate concerns?

Ian Wilson · Post by **Ian Wilson** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:09 am

Interesting mess!

Let me see if I have the facts straight. The "Proposed Division of Land" plat No. 181-022-5, filed in March of 1968, was never completed and no waiver of parcel map was recorded. The four parcels were described as four individual parcels but never conveyed as individual parcels.

If this is true, then the division was never completed and the parcels never existed as separate, legal parcels at any time. This has come up before, a few times.

The plat indicates that someone INTENDED to divide the property, but, without subsequent recorded documents that show the division was completed, the process was, for some reason, aborted. Whether or not the separate descriptions were prepared prior to March 4, 1972 is immaterial if the parcels were never conveyed or used as separate parcels.

In short, you have a situation where you have one legal parcel that has a mess of incomplete paperwork and actions on it, in my opinion. I donâ€™t think the attorney and the title company have â€œconcernsâ€; I think they have a client with one parcel.

My 2Â¢ worthâ€¦

Peter Ehlert · Post by **Peter Ehlert** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:58 am

A mess it is... but another spin on it:

I think the proper course of action is to apply for separate Certificate of Compliance for each lot.

I contend that in 1968 the approved "proposed division" is the same as a Parcel Map. There could be no waiver of parcel map because there was no such animal until 1972...

It was common to subdivide land in this way in that day. Yes it would be ideal if the property were held separately but I believe you have an excellent case to push for Certificate of Compliance on individual lots.

2Â¢ more, almost a nickel!

steffan · Post by **steffan** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:41 pm

What was the form and content of the County's approval?
Was there a local ordinance in effect in 1968 which regulated subdivisions of fewer than 5 parcels? If so, did this "subdivision" comply with the ordinance?

DJLS · Post by **DJLS** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:03 pm

Ian, I agree with Peter, though you may be correct in your jurisdiction, but after further review I find a County of San Diego policy ("Determination of Legal Parcel" Policy G-3) on the Department of Planning and Land Use web site that clearly indicates to me the method that created the parcels defines the each as a legal parcels. I hope the case will be closed after I direct the concerned parties to this policy. I will post an update and thank you Ian, Peter, and Steffan for your professional considerations. Merry Christmas and the best New year to you all. Dave

Gary O · Post by **Gary O** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:18 am

We've had a few of these and the conditions were pretty vague. As long as they met the conditions, which included an "approved" stamp from the Assessor, we have been issuing administrative certificates. However, the assessor clearance has been the biggest stumbling block. Most did the dedications or septic work and then let them die on the vine, thinking they were all done.

Ian Wilson · Post by **Ian Wilson** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:30 am

Exactly, Gary!

In my experience with the beasts, they were a cheap alternative to a proper job done by a surveyor or engineer. Many of the onoes I've seen were done by the property owner who was not savy enough to complete the process. The owners did these themselves to save a buck.

In the end, it will likely cost the current owners big dollars to sort out the mess and do the job again properly.