More than four Lot Line Adjustments

[Gary O]

Although the Map Act states that 'less than four lot line adjustments' are exempt, it doesn't really go into what happens if there are more than four.

We hadn't had this situation until recently when a project with 16 LLA's showed up with four on each appliction. Our jurisdiction decided (without me) to limit applicants to four LLA's 'per application' so they're doing four and when those are finished they're going to submit the next four.

This reeks of 'four by four-ing' to me and I don't think its a huge leap to apply the Attorney Generals opinion regarding parcel maps creating more than four parcels.

My feeling is that once you hit four you'd need to do a final map. I don't think we can (or should) condition it for roads and all of the normal improvements.

Any guidance? I apologize if this has been here before but I don't recall seeing it.

[bwatkins]

Durkee's take on this (and I agree) in "Map Act Navigator 2008" is until clarified by the Legislature, the decision is up to the local public agency.

[Ian Wilson]

Hey Gary! Good questions! And, no, I don’t think this has been hashed over before (even if it has, it’s such an important topic that it’s well worth hashing over again!).

You’re absolutely right, §66412 does state that “…(t)his division shall be inapplicable to any of the following…d)that A lot line adjustment between four or fewer existing adjoining parcels, where the land taken from one parcel is added to an adjoining parcel, and where a greater number of parcels than originally existed is not thereby created…”

And you’re right in stating that Division 2 of Title 7 of the California Government Code doesn’t clearly state what to do with Lot Line Adjustments that adjust five parcels or more. In my opinion, it really doesn’t do a good job of addressing LLAs of four parcels or fewer, either.

However, if you look at §66426, you’ll see that it states that a “…tentative and final map shall be required for all subdivisions creating five or more parcels…” Subdivision is defined in §66424. "Subdivision" means the division, by any subdivider, of any unit or units of improved or unimproved land, or any portion thereof, shown on the latest equalized county assessment roll as a unit or as contiguous units, for the purpose of sale, lease or financing, whether immediate or future. In a sense, adjusting a lot line IS the creation of a new parcel. §66412 simply states that the lot line adjustment is a special case of subdivision in which land is taken away from one parcel and added to an adjoining parcel.

So, loosely, it could be argued that the Subdivision Map Act contemplates a single application wherein more than four lots are going to be adjusted. Unfortunately, the SMA insists that such adjustments would require a tentative and final map, unless the project fits the exceptions listed in §66426, wherein the adjustment could be performed on a parcel map.

The entire division relates to the orderly subdivision of land. §66426 provides for such subdivision by either a tentative and final map or by a parcel map. The exceptions, such as those in §66412, merely exclude these exceptions from the requirements of subdividing by a tentative and final map or by a parcel map.

You also mentioned four-by-fouring. In my opinion, and, I think, that of the Attorney General, the basic concept of “four-by-fouring” was to create what really amounted to a tract by filing multiple parcel maps. The purpose was to circumvent the requirements to create and establish the infrastructure necessary to support orderly development. In other words, the 4X4er would turn a 20 acre parcel into a tract of 20 1-acre parcels through 7 separate parcel maps. There was a day when the parcel map (or simple subdivision as it was called in some jurisdictions) cost a small fraction of what a tract map could cost. Additionally, there was no infrastructure requirement for a parcel map, saving the 4X4er all those fees and costs, too.

If the infrastructure is already in place and the LLAer is merely creating a more useful set of lots, there is nothing that “…reeks of 'four by four-ing'…” to me, regardless of how many LLA Applications the subdivider needs to prepare to adjust the existing parcels.

Now, Gary, here’s one back at you:

Since the exception in §66412 specifically limits the LLA to four parcels or fewer and to taking land from one parcel and adding it to another, what happens when you have four parcels in a row, bordering on a public street. Let’s say that the parcel on one end is 70 feet wide, the two parcels in the middle are each 60 feet wide and the parcel on the other end is 50 feet wide. The parcels were created by deeds back in the mid-50’s. Local zoning allows for 60 foot wide parcels in this area. I own all four parcels. Can I include these four parcels on one application and create 4 parcels that are 60 foot wide?

Some jurisdictions say, “No!” They imply that taking the 10 feet from the 1st parcel and passing it on, successively, to the last parcel is not permitted because the two parcels are not adjacent. Their argument is that §66412 says nothing about a single parcel being able to both gain AND give up land. This would actually require three separate LLA Applications and proceedings in these jurisdictions.

There are also jurisdictions in which adjacent means “actually touching” even if at only one point.

I would have to admit that I am something of a “federalist” when it comes to subdivision legislation. By that, I mean that I would prefer to look to the SMA for my subdivision guidance than to have to wade through local ordinance. However, I often find myself pining for the “good old days” when the SMA exempted ALL Lot Line Adjustments and left the control of the process up to the local jurisdictions.

Cheers…y’all!

[Gary O]

Bwatkins and Greg, I don't like having the authority on this cuz I'm caught in the middle. Our County Counsel says "NO! They have to file a map!" but the planners have already approved the four applications.

Bob, the new parcels can't show up on the rolls until they've been recorded and they can't record until I've stamped them and I can't stamp them until I get some consistent direction!

Ldysrvyr, these are very old deed lots, so no subdivision maps involved.

Ian, if a lot line adjustment 'created' a new parcel then we'd have to do maps for all of them. In this case, they have 10 lots, when they're done they'll have 10 lots.

My suggestion to my jurisdiction was a parcel map (Parcel Map LLA 07-0055) which would ghost in the old lines and show the new ones. The exterior would have to be surveyed monuments wouldn't have to be set at the interior corners.

To answer your question, as long as all for lots were legal I would look at that as three LLA's between four lots. And we would approve it because it would be bringing all of the lots into comformance with our ordinance.

[Lehmann]

Don't forget, A LLA doesn't create new parcels period. It modifies line(s).
In Shasta county, I can submit successive lla's on adjacent parcels, so that ultimately I may adjust 10 parcels over time. It just takes longer.

[Gary O]

....if the Map Act says that 'four or fewer' LLA's are exempt, then one must assume that more than four are subject to the Act, although what happens next is obvious in its absence! Therefore, any manipulation of the processing to avoid the 'more than four' application of the Act is an attempt to circumvent the Act.

The "four by four" Attorney General opinion was in response to the very same type of manipulation of parcel maps to circumvent the Act and avoid doing a final map. I have no trouble applying that opinion to LLA's, but again the next step is missing.

Because of the absence of any subsequent direction in the Act, I don't think what's being done elsewhere is necessarily wrong (yet!) but I'm not comfortable with it.

[Lehmann]

Shasta Co. has taken the position that the Limit of "four parcels or less" refers to the number of parcels included on any one LLA, and is therefore "per application". Perhaps we just live in an a more pro landowner Co.

Durkee had it right, its being left up the the local agencies (County / City).

[E_Page]

If all the lots are within the same subdivision, El Dorado Co generally prefers an Amended Map, even though it is for the purposes of changing the map rather than correcting it.

Otherwise, serial or sequential LLAs can be submitted.

[cals6406]

Authorizes modifying the map with changes not included in 66469 provided that that among other things there is a new public hearing.

Keith

[D Ryan]

David,

You raise some really good points, all valid. No, you're not reading too much into it, but I would say the implementation and interpretation of these sections vary throughout the state. Our county is in the process of creating an ordinance to implement that last section you cited ("if authorized by local ordinance") to allow a certificate of correction or amended map to "fix" or change certain things. I tend to view these resubdivisions or multiple lot line adjustments described above as a strectch, and don't believe that's what was intended.

Now about that language, "if the modifications do not impose any additional
burden on the fee owners of the real property, and if the
modifications do not alter any right, title, or interest in the real
property reflected on the recorded map". It has always seemed to me any change on a map has the effect of altering a right, title or interest and would make this section rarely applicable.

BUT, what if the landowner(s) who would be affected approves of the change or correction, and does it via some other vehicle, but desires to reflect it on an amended map or certificate of correction, getting it into the public record. I'm thinking of relocating an easement, for instance. Deeds would be exchanged relocating an easement, then reflected on a certificate of correction or amended map. I've seen it done for that type of case, and think it's a good way of accomplishing something when all affected parties are in agreement and have consent by the county that the changes are generally consistent with the original approved subdivision.

I guess what I've always read into this section is it's intended to prevent some unilateral change by one party that affects another party without their approval. And that change can't be made by the amended map, but if it's made by another action and reflected via the amended map, that's different.

The easement is just one example. I can see a case where a lot line was poorly placed and later discovered during development that an oversight made during the conceptual (tentative map) phase caused it. One could argue an amended map could fix this, especially if the original subdivider still owns the affected lot(s). I'd have him go ahead and sign the map though, in that case.

Just some more things to bat around.

Dave Ryan
Humboldt County