California Surveyors Forums

I have a situation where some easements on a Tract Map were vacated and abandoned by the City. These easements were for taxiway purposes (this is next to an airport) and are significant -150' wide. These easements were shown on the original map and dedicated on the original map as easements similar to a road easement. The city never received fee title to the land. The lots as shown on the original map terminated at the edge of the taxiways.

One of the owners asked me to do a record of survey showing his new lot line. Since this is a case where a single map (simultaneous conveyances) created all the lots and and taxiways it seems to me that since there was no other intent shown on the original map that all the lot lines go to the center of the abandoned taxiway.

The rub comes in because the taxiway easement does a 90 degree turn and creates an indeterminate situation about where the lines revert to. For the sake of argument lets all assume that it truly is an indeterminate solution as to the reversion rights. So to draw the new lines I took the approach of equitability in distributing the indeterminate area equally to the two parties affected.

So I submit the Record of the Survey to the county and they balk at it. They say that I either need a certificate of compliance from the city or a quitclaim deed from the city showing who the land goes to because of the indeterminate area. The city says they never held fee title to the land so they are just going to abandon and vacate it and nothing else (this abandonment happened over 20 years ago).

After reviewing the assessor's map with property lines drawn to the center of the easement the County Surveyor accepts my map, but only after I revise the location of the lines in the indeterminate portion to his liking (which was still equitable but not what I thought was appropriate).

Reflecting on this experience my questions are:
1. If the assessor hadn't shown the new lines going the centerline what could I have done? The city (I think rightly since they didn't hold fee title) only abandoned and vacated the easement, but didn't say who it went to (why would they want to get involved, make sense to me). But since they didn't say where it was going the County Surveyor didn't like me showing new lines out of nowhere without some type of recorded document from the city showing where the new lines should be drawn which the city didn't want to do (and I don't think they would have a right to do since they don't have fee title). I felt caught in a circular argument with no end in sight.

2. Who decides where the reverted line goes in an indeterminate situation? The surveyor? The lawyers? The County Surveyor?

Any insights would be appreciated

How about the one entity you haven't mentioned: the owners!

Can you post a plat showing hte "indeterminate" area due to the bend? Is this bend actually a curve in the old taxiway? Why haven't you treated this as ownership along a dried lake bed?

We need a lot more info before making any statements.

Ian -

The purpose of my question wasn't to ask for advice about where the line be drawn in the indeterminate area because that is already agreed upon by the owners. My question was more general in nature, should I, as the surveyor be the person who determines that line if both owners agree that it is equitable? Or should some other party be part of the decision (i.e. does the county surveyor have a right to say that he doesn't like where the line is and therefore won't take the record of survey as it is shown)?

The County Surveyor doesn't have a right to dictate how you do your survey or what opinions you express.

That being said...in my experience, most of the time County Surveyors are offering their insight, viewpoint, assistance, etc. to help you with your responsibilities. And it may bear consideration as if it were coming from any other licensed peer.

Ric

For clarity this is a verbatim quote from the comment letter received by the county plan checker about why the record of survey couldn't be used to show the new lines:

"The adjusted lot line is apparently intended to reflect an area appended to the original deed parcel by virtue of the resolutions recorded by the city that vacate the taxiway. In the absence of a deed from the city conveying or quitclaiming a fee interest in the vacated area, the Record of Survey cannot by itself create this line (Section 8762.5 PLSA). A recorded conveyance or Cert. of Compliance (as provided by Sec. 8762.5) issued by the city would trigger the change in the boundary line of the affected parcels .

It is our opinion that either a recorded Cert. of Compliance or Quitclaim Deed from the city is necessary in order to proceed with the filing of this Record of Survey."

I did get this resolved but only because the Assessor's office had the new lines shown on their records. It is outrageous to me that only because the assessor had it shown that I could show it. Seems like the tail wagging the dog to me.

Comments?

In addition to having a few questions, I agree with Ian, it would be nice to see, at a minimum, the resolution from the City abandoning and vacating the easement.

1. How does the Title Report address the vacated portion pertinent to your client's parcel as shown on the Tract Map? For that matter, also for other adjoiners?

2. Why would the Assessor still depict an easement that was abandoned and vacated 20 years after the fact?

3. Have you sought an opinion from the Title Officer that prepared the title report?

The County Surveyor can offer suggestions, recommendations, opinions and even depict those on the filed Record of Survey, but cannot refuse to file the map. It is important to realize that when a Land Surveyor and CS are in disagreement on issues regarding a Record of Survey, BOTH parties are bound by regulation to note their differences of opinion on the Record of Survey, then file it. Read the last two sentances (if not all) of 8768. "Shall" is pretty definite.

Based ONLY on what information you have provided so far and understanding the position the CS has with regards to 8762.5, have you considered how 8762(b)(3) applies to your situation? Couldn't you consider the City's resolution as material evidence to alternate positions of lines not shown on any subdivision map...? If you had uncovered physical evidence in the field that in your opinion resulted in possible alternate positions, wouldn't that also not be in compliance with 8762.5?

While I can believe I understand the position of wanting to have a recorded document "legitimizing" the lines, I believe that 8762.5 takes a backseat to 8762(b)(3) in priority as to why a Record of Survey is required. If on the other hand, your client wanted to develop or subdivide his parcel (including the disputed, vacated easement area), I can more fully understand the CS point of view with regards to 8762.5.

Remember that your Record of Survey ONLY documents your professional opinion as to the position of a boundary. It does not CREATE lines, nor impart constructive notice in the chain of title.

Ric

Wattles has some really great drawings in "Land Survey Descriptions".

I would bet you could quote the book as a source if you followed any of the examples given.

If the County Surveyor required a quitclaim or any other deed for each and every parcel that received a portion of a vacated street/alley we would still be writing them from decades ago!

The Certificate of Compliance is a tool which memorializes the opinion of the local jurisdiction that the parcel is a legally created parcel. Note that this certificate does not determine whether the parcel is developable, which is a completely separate issue. It does not establish the location of a boundary.

The Quitclaim Deed cannot and will not establish a boundary line. For example, I can record a QCD absolving myself of any interest I may have in the southerly 600 square feet of your parcel. That would in no way create a separate parcel out of that 600 square feet. (Not to mention that my claim of any interest in the first place may well be invalid.) The point of a QCD is to divest any interest in a parcel. The Federal Patent is an oddball case of QCDs wherein the federal rights to a particular parcel are given up to the patentee. The local jurisdictional agency can and often does require issuance of a Certificate of Compliance even for parcel created under a federal patent.

In this case, the location of the boundary dividing one parties interest from another’s may be indeterminate. While there are generally accepted procedures which may GUIDE the location of boundary lines in cases such as this, the rules are not fast. If you have both owners agreeing to the location of a line which, heretofore, has be indeterminate, then, barring any conflict with local zoning ordinance and local subdivision ordinance, you have an agreement created by the ultimate authority – the land owners themselves.

Prepare and file a boundary line agreement and then follow it up with the RS to memorialize that agreement.

Game, Set, Match – Owners.

Oh, by the way, as the Professional Land Surveyor engaged by both parties, YOU are in the best position to assist your clients in resolving their situation to THEIR satisfaction.