OK everyone... The question at our office has been asked: what is a legal parcel? It seems a developer in our area is going to be assessed for each "Legal Parcel" he owns by a local district. His claim is he has several contiguous parcels, as shown on a county assessor's plat, but has only one legal parcel.Tha district wants to assess him for each assessment parcel. I am working on the definition for that term and would like some feedback from all of you.
Ian, Russ, Evan and Ric, you should have fun with this.
Thanks in advance.
Definition of "Legal Parcel"
-
Scott Tikalsky
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 2:36 pm
- Location: Redding, Ca.
Definition of "Legal Parcel"
Scott Tikalsky, L.S.
Redding, Ca.
530.440.5046
Redding, Ca.
530.440.5046
-
Ric7308
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 2:50 pm
Scott, like we need to have more "Fun".
Evan, good question.
Is there more than one Asssessor's Parcel Number?
How are the individual parcels described in a title report? Are they completely separate deeds?
If currently improved and serviced by utility districts, how are they depicted in those accounting systems? As separate accounts or all as one?
I would take the time to inquire with the local Title Company, both for their opinion and their definition of "legal parcel".
Ric
Evan, good question.
Is there more than one Asssessor's Parcel Number?
How are the individual parcels described in a title report? Are they completely separate deeds?
If currently improved and serviced by utility districts, how are they depicted in those accounting systems? As separate accounts or all as one?
I would take the time to inquire with the local Title Company, both for their opinion and their definition of "legal parcel".
Ric
-
Ben Lund
- Posts: 371
- Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:07 pm
You can have multiple assessors’ parcels on ONE legal parcel. You can have multiple legal parcels under one assessors’ parcel.
What defines a legal parcel? Evan has mentioned one criterion (arguably the only) but there are many. For example, see Issue #154 of the California Surveyor pg 44 for subdivisions pre-dating 1929.
What defines a legal parcel? Evan has mentioned one criterion (arguably the only) but there are many. For example, see Issue #154 of the California Surveyor pg 44 for subdivisions pre-dating 1929.
-
Ric7308
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 2:50 pm
Steve beat me to it and offers good advice. However, I have a question regarding your original statement. If I understand you correctly, this is not a question of subdivision status, it is an assessment determination by a local district. If that is true, 66412.6 may or may not apply.
That is why I asked about how utility districts are referencing the parcel(s). Generally, those districts charge their fees on an annual basis and are included on the property tax bills. And usually, the accounts are based on Assessor parcels. I would imagine that if the client is being billed separately on multiple property tax bills and has been for some time, that would represent an acceptance as multiple legal parcels.
Ric
That is why I asked about how utility districts are referencing the parcel(s). Generally, those districts charge their fees on an annual basis and are included on the property tax bills. And usually, the accounts are based on Assessor parcels. I would imagine that if the client is being billed separately on multiple property tax bills and has been for some time, that would represent an acceptance as multiple legal parcels.
Ric
-
Ian Wilson
- Posts: 1087
- Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2002 6:58 am
- Location: Bay Area
Thw Word According to the SMA
How funny! I’ve just been dealing with this question for someone else who visits our forum from time to time. Gary, if you’re reading this, stop laughing. Scott is an old friend and he’s going to get exactly the same as you got.
Scott:
There are a number of definitions of what constitutes a legal parcel.
The first of which is taken directly from the Subdivision Map Act, our State’s compendium of knowledge regarding such things. Please refer in your texts to §66412.6. Read along with me:
(a) For purposes of this division or of a local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto, any parcel created prior to March 4, 1972, shall be conclusively presumed to have been lawfully created if the parcel resulted from a division of land in which fewer than five parcels were created and if at the time of the creation of the parcel, there was no local ordinance in effect which regulated divisions of land creating fewer than five parcels.
(b) For purposes of this division or of a local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto, any parcel created prior to March 4, 1972, shall be conclusively presumed to have been lawfully created if any subsequent purchaser acquired that parcel for valuable consideration without actual or constructive knowledge of a violation of this division or the local ordinance. Owners of parcels or units of land affected by the provisions of this subdivision shall be required to obtain a certificate of compliance or a conditional certificate of compliance pursuant to Section 66499.35 prior to obtaining a permit or other grant of approval for development of the parcel or unit of land. For purposes of determining whether the parcel or unit of land complies with the provisions of this division and of local ordinances enacted pursuant thereto, as required pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 66499.35, the presumption declared in this subdivision shall not be operative.
(c) This section shall become operative January 1, 1995.
So, if the parcel was created by deed prior to March 4, 1972 and the deed created no more than four parcels, then, according to our reading, the parcel is a legally created parcel. Such a parcel is a “legal†parcel.
Ah, but, you say, my client owns 67 parcels plus some lettered parcels and portions of lettered parcels of a tract recorded in 1924! That tract map created way more than four parcels. Are you saying these parcels aren’t legal parcels?
No, dear reader. We must delve further into the missal. Please turn to §66499.35(d). Here, we read:
A recorded final map, parcel map, official map, or an approved certificate of exception shall constitute a certificate of compliance with respect to the parcels of real property described therein.
What, then, does this certificate of compliance indicate? For this, we must interpret the language of paragraph (a) of this same section.
Any person owning real property or a vendee of that person pursuant to a contract of sale of the real property may request, and a local agency shall determine, whether the real property complies with the provisions of this division and of local ordinances enacted pursuant to this division. If a local agency determines that the real property complies, the city or the county shall cause a certificate of compliance to be filed for record with the recorder of the county in which the real property is located. The certificate of compliance shall identify the real property and shall state that the division of the real property complies with applicable provisions of this division and of local ordinances enacted pursuant to this division. The local agency may impose a reasonable fee to cover the cost of issuing and recording the certificate of compliance.
An actual Certificate of Compliance can only be issued by a local agency upon their determination that the subject parcel meets the requirements of “this divisionâ€, being Division 2 of Title 7 of the California Government Code, Subdivisions. The only parcels which can meet these onerous requirements are those parcels which are deemed to have been legally created.
Paragraph (d) tells us that every parcel created by a recorded final map, parcel map, official map, or an approved certificate of exception is issued a blanket certificate of compliance in the guise of the various official agency statements appearing on the face of the map by which the parcel was created. In other words, all those parcels created by parcel maps, tract maps, final maps, official maps and the like are all legally created parcels under the terms of our wondrous §66499.35!
In its infinite wisdom, our dear legislature further provided for a faux pas or two by local agencies, as well. In the off event that some dastardly developer managed to slip a deed by the recorder after that veritable day of accounting, March 4, 1972, the lowly ILLEGALLY created parcel can still redeem itself. Should the local agency err and issue ANY permit to develop, from a grading permit to a utility permit to a building permit, that permit shall suffice as a defacto certificate of compliance and, as long as the current owner of that parcel is not the vile creature who spawned it, they must, under the provisions of §66499.35(c), be granted that most glorious of documents, the Certificate of Compliance if so requested!
Finally, there is yet another way in which a lowly parcel may be elevated to the ranks of good and free legal parcelhood. It can be blessed by a governmental agency, public entity, and public utility of subsidiary. In a perfect example of “do as I say and NOT as I doâ€, parcels can be created by deed, without the benefit of subdivision map, when a governmental agency of public entity is involved. Just be sure that if you are involved in the birth of such a parcel that you also demand of the agency a Certificate of Compliance for the residue, if any, lest it be forced into the darkness of that vile and undocumented parcel.
Now, on to the second part of your question, Scott!
What of the amalgam of parcels which the County Assessor, under the veil of the Paperwork Reduction Act, collected into a single Assessor’s Parcel Number for tax exaction purposes? Fear not! That collective is but a mere agglomeration of legal parcels. Each and every one jack of them is a separate and kicking legal being fated to its own exaction. Each and every one of them can be shuffled about, merged, adjusted, fixed in position and reverted to acreage, but the collection for tax purposes cannot be considered as a unity to dodge that grasp of the assessment based on number of parcels!
Now, should any of you be inclined to flaunt the hallowed provisions of this good Act, further yourselves by reading the words of §66499.31
Each violation of this division by a person who is the subdivider or an owner of record, at the time of the violation, of property involved in the violation shall be punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison, by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment. Every other violation of this division is a misdemeanor.
And, for you minions of public agencies, failure to file a Notice of Violation of any provision of this Division is violation the statutes of §66499.36 of this very same Act! Heed you well, lest you be hauled to the local county jail for failing to meet all the provisions of this Division!
Of course, a good deal of this could easily be gleaned from the styled writings of that dashing surfer-come-attorney-at-law, our own inimitable Michael Durkee, Esq. And, those musing of his are to be found in a journal no less worthy than the one so capably edited by young John Wilusz, PE, PLS and Man of the World, the California Surveyor!
Cheers, all!
Scott:
There are a number of definitions of what constitutes a legal parcel.
The first of which is taken directly from the Subdivision Map Act, our State’s compendium of knowledge regarding such things. Please refer in your texts to §66412.6. Read along with me:
(a) For purposes of this division or of a local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto, any parcel created prior to March 4, 1972, shall be conclusively presumed to have been lawfully created if the parcel resulted from a division of land in which fewer than five parcels were created and if at the time of the creation of the parcel, there was no local ordinance in effect which regulated divisions of land creating fewer than five parcels.
(b) For purposes of this division or of a local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto, any parcel created prior to March 4, 1972, shall be conclusively presumed to have been lawfully created if any subsequent purchaser acquired that parcel for valuable consideration without actual or constructive knowledge of a violation of this division or the local ordinance. Owners of parcels or units of land affected by the provisions of this subdivision shall be required to obtain a certificate of compliance or a conditional certificate of compliance pursuant to Section 66499.35 prior to obtaining a permit or other grant of approval for development of the parcel or unit of land. For purposes of determining whether the parcel or unit of land complies with the provisions of this division and of local ordinances enacted pursuant thereto, as required pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 66499.35, the presumption declared in this subdivision shall not be operative.
(c) This section shall become operative January 1, 1995.
So, if the parcel was created by deed prior to March 4, 1972 and the deed created no more than four parcels, then, according to our reading, the parcel is a legally created parcel. Such a parcel is a “legal†parcel.
Ah, but, you say, my client owns 67 parcels plus some lettered parcels and portions of lettered parcels of a tract recorded in 1924! That tract map created way more than four parcels. Are you saying these parcels aren’t legal parcels?
No, dear reader. We must delve further into the missal. Please turn to §66499.35(d). Here, we read:
A recorded final map, parcel map, official map, or an approved certificate of exception shall constitute a certificate of compliance with respect to the parcels of real property described therein.
What, then, does this certificate of compliance indicate? For this, we must interpret the language of paragraph (a) of this same section.
Any person owning real property or a vendee of that person pursuant to a contract of sale of the real property may request, and a local agency shall determine, whether the real property complies with the provisions of this division and of local ordinances enacted pursuant to this division. If a local agency determines that the real property complies, the city or the county shall cause a certificate of compliance to be filed for record with the recorder of the county in which the real property is located. The certificate of compliance shall identify the real property and shall state that the division of the real property complies with applicable provisions of this division and of local ordinances enacted pursuant to this division. The local agency may impose a reasonable fee to cover the cost of issuing and recording the certificate of compliance.
An actual Certificate of Compliance can only be issued by a local agency upon their determination that the subject parcel meets the requirements of “this divisionâ€, being Division 2 of Title 7 of the California Government Code, Subdivisions. The only parcels which can meet these onerous requirements are those parcels which are deemed to have been legally created.
Paragraph (d) tells us that every parcel created by a recorded final map, parcel map, official map, or an approved certificate of exception is issued a blanket certificate of compliance in the guise of the various official agency statements appearing on the face of the map by which the parcel was created. In other words, all those parcels created by parcel maps, tract maps, final maps, official maps and the like are all legally created parcels under the terms of our wondrous §66499.35!
In its infinite wisdom, our dear legislature further provided for a faux pas or two by local agencies, as well. In the off event that some dastardly developer managed to slip a deed by the recorder after that veritable day of accounting, March 4, 1972, the lowly ILLEGALLY created parcel can still redeem itself. Should the local agency err and issue ANY permit to develop, from a grading permit to a utility permit to a building permit, that permit shall suffice as a defacto certificate of compliance and, as long as the current owner of that parcel is not the vile creature who spawned it, they must, under the provisions of §66499.35(c), be granted that most glorious of documents, the Certificate of Compliance if so requested!
Finally, there is yet another way in which a lowly parcel may be elevated to the ranks of good and free legal parcelhood. It can be blessed by a governmental agency, public entity, and public utility of subsidiary. In a perfect example of “do as I say and NOT as I doâ€, parcels can be created by deed, without the benefit of subdivision map, when a governmental agency of public entity is involved. Just be sure that if you are involved in the birth of such a parcel that you also demand of the agency a Certificate of Compliance for the residue, if any, lest it be forced into the darkness of that vile and undocumented parcel.
Now, on to the second part of your question, Scott!
What of the amalgam of parcels which the County Assessor, under the veil of the Paperwork Reduction Act, collected into a single Assessor’s Parcel Number for tax exaction purposes? Fear not! That collective is but a mere agglomeration of legal parcels. Each and every one jack of them is a separate and kicking legal being fated to its own exaction. Each and every one of them can be shuffled about, merged, adjusted, fixed in position and reverted to acreage, but the collection for tax purposes cannot be considered as a unity to dodge that grasp of the assessment based on number of parcels!
Now, should any of you be inclined to flaunt the hallowed provisions of this good Act, further yourselves by reading the words of §66499.31
Each violation of this division by a person who is the subdivider or an owner of record, at the time of the violation, of property involved in the violation shall be punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison, by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment. Every other violation of this division is a misdemeanor.
And, for you minions of public agencies, failure to file a Notice of Violation of any provision of this Division is violation the statutes of §66499.36 of this very same Act! Heed you well, lest you be hauled to the local county jail for failing to meet all the provisions of this Division!
Of course, a good deal of this could easily be gleaned from the styled writings of that dashing surfer-come-attorney-at-law, our own inimitable Michael Durkee, Esq. And, those musing of his are to be found in a journal no less worthy than the one so capably edited by young John Wilusz, PE, PLS and Man of the World, the California Surveyor!
Cheers, all!
Ian Wilson, P.L.S. (CA / NV / CO)
Alameda County Surveyor
Alameda County Surveyor
-
Scott Tikalsky
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 2:36 pm
- Location: Redding, Ca.
All;
Thanks for your responses. I gave these to the Managing Engineer to chew on. He was impressed with the amount of information provided. To clarify, the developer's property is not yet a part of a Community Services District in the area, but is applying to be annexed in. The assessor's plat shows several parcels, but the developer is claiming there is only 1. I suspect the developer has merged parcels over the time of their ownership. The County's assessors office has not reflected this on the assessor plat. By the way, there is codified language in the district regulations that uses the term "Legal Parcel", which is what started this whole discussion.
Ric, Ian and everyone else, again, thanks for the info.
Ian, you and your wife, Eileen and I need to "get wet" sometime. I haven't been diving at Catalina in 4 years and am missing it.
Thanks for your responses. I gave these to the Managing Engineer to chew on. He was impressed with the amount of information provided. To clarify, the developer's property is not yet a part of a Community Services District in the area, but is applying to be annexed in. The assessor's plat shows several parcels, but the developer is claiming there is only 1. I suspect the developer has merged parcels over the time of their ownership. The County's assessors office has not reflected this on the assessor plat. By the way, there is codified language in the district regulations that uses the term "Legal Parcel", which is what started this whole discussion.
Ric, Ian and everyone else, again, thanks for the info.
Ian, you and your wife, Eileen and I need to "get wet" sometime. I haven't been diving at Catalina in 4 years and am missing it.
Scott Tikalsky, L.S.
Redding, Ca.
530.440.5046
Redding, Ca.
530.440.5046
-
RAM
- Posts: 770
- Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:16 am
- Location: Central Cal Mountains
-
Scott Tikalsky
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 2:36 pm
- Location: Redding, Ca.