California Surveyors Forums

So, the deed reads like this:

Parcel I:
Lots X and Y in Block XX, etc...... ....... ... "Together with that portion of the Southerly one-half of an unnamed Alley, Title to which would pass by a Conveyance describing said Lot." - This alley borders the northerly line of my parcel.

Parcel II: Northerly half of the same unnamed Alley mentioned in Parcel I.


I have another document from the Board of Supervisors that is a "Resolution to Vacate A 20' Alley" pursuant to S&H Code 8320.


My concern is about that statement regarding the alley in Parcel I. There is no document confirming that the County deeded the southerly half of that alley to anybody. And I am not so quick to believe that the southerly half of that alley reverts to my client upon executing the act of abandonment.


Advice is much appreciated.

Cheers.

My understanding is that the municipality would need to Quit Claim their rights to that portion of land being vacated to the ajacent owner as set forth in "Boundary Control and Legal Principles" per Resolution XXX. They also may already have an underlying right to the land in question, if the alley was an easement.

My understanding is that the municipality would need to QuitClaim their rights to that portion of land being vacated to the ajacent owner as set forth in "Boundary Control and Legal Principles" per Resolution XXX. They also may already have an underlying right to the land in question, if the alley was an easement.

California civil code 831 says: An owner of land bounded by a road or street is presumed to own to the center of the way, but the contrary may be shown.

ldysrvyr has posted some good info on this forum on the subject, in particular one dated 2-5-2008


http://clsaforum.californiasurveyors.or ... -2084.html

Good stuff folks.

I'm working from an 1889 Lot & Block map. I'm gonna have to go down to the County to read the small print.

I just don't like that Parcel I statement in my deed, "Together with that portion of the Southerly one-half of an unnamed Alley, Title to which would pass by a Conveyance describing said Lot."

Where is the conveyance?

As a general rule and a prudent one, the municipality will not ascertain who owns the fee. As aptly noted above, there is a reubuttal presumption about who owns this land. The function of a street vacation is to extinguish the public at large rights. Please be careful as adjoiner rights can survive a vacation. What I recommend is to contact a title company and explain to them your position and then ask them if they will insure the ownership based upon your analysis and recommendation. Surveyors should not be in the insurance and liability arena - that is what title insurance is for. It is always wise in questionable situations to transfer ambiguous liability to an insurance company. The transfer of a lot implies under California law that the adjacent street, one half or otherwise is conveyed. Good luck.

No QCD required for the S'ly portion (that portion adjoining the lot owned). QCD required from owner of property that adjoins other side if that parcel on the far side of the ally was part of the same subdivision/parent parcel.

If this alley is on the edge of the subdivision (no lot of the subd on other side of alley) and was formed wholly from lands of the subdivision, the underlying ownership of the entire width of the alley is with the adjoining lot within the same subdivision. Again, No QCD would be required.

The vacation process is the local govt abolishing their easement over the fee title of the land, hence no transfer of title ownership.

[Edit: Mike Pallamary's reply appeared when I posted mine]

My response speaks to general cases. Mike's advice is right on to ensure that you have the general case. Most of the time it will be, but as in all questions of survey... it depends...

Thank you all!

"Together with that portion of the Southerly one-half of an unnamed Alley, Title to which would pass by a Conveyance describing said Lot."

I just think that statement is screwy and ambiguous.

But, after speaking with the title company, it turns out this statement I was concerned with is a cookie cutter statement from the CLTA Manual. Have a look at the bottom of the attached page.

I'm not surprised that it is cookie cutter. I used to see it all the time in boundary and right of way surveys I was involved in for the Alameda Corridor down in Port of LA/Long Beach area.

"Together with that portion of the Southerly one-half of an unnamed Alley, Title to which would pass by a Conveyance describing said Lot."

That doesn't seem all that ambiguous to me. The intent is pretty clear. It's just stating that the underlying title to that portion of the street that would be apportioned by normal rules for doing so is part of the property.

It's general so as to be usable under a very wide variety of specific circumstances, but not ambiguous if one is aware of the specifics of the site in terms of layout and title history, and have familiarity with the standard rules for apportioning reversionary rights. The statement tells you that the title is there, it just doesn't give you the precise configuration. That's where the surveyor comes in.

The location will be dependent upon the site specific circumstances, the underlying title history, and apportionment supported by common law. That intent is not ambiguous. It is up to the surveyor (initially) to determine which method would be most supportable in determining the location. A surveyor might think of that as a latent ambiguity because the description does not give a precise location.

I don't think of it as a latent ambiguity unless two different surveyors have apportioned it differently and thereby created a conflict of location. Prior to that, there is no conflict, so no ambiguity. The location simply has not been precisely determined as of yet.

Methods of apportioning, or locating the boundaries of the underlying fee can range from being either very simple (as with lots & blocks where all lies are nominally parallel and perpendilular, RW & lots all created from within one parent parcel) to being quite complex and latently ambiguous (curvey streets, lot lines intersecting RW at odd angles, existence of additional and independent easements, state and configuration of underlying fee prior to the RW existing). The apportionment method that worked in one circumstance may not work in the next. I don't know that CA courts have favored one over others, but I think that they tend to accept the solution which appears to be most equitable.

Can anybody post that recent decision about vacated streets and whether or not fee title has been transferred, depending on the language?

Not really Case Law, but almost as good... CCP Section 831...

An owner of land bounded by a road or street is presumed to own to the center of the way, but the contrary may be shown.

When a street is dedicated for road purposes, the fee is not transferred.

Not a decision, but this opinion is related:

Ian Wilson wrote:Not really Case Law, but almost as good... CCP Section 831...
An owner of land bounded by a road or street is presumed to own to the center of the way, but the contrary may be shown.
When a street is dedicated for road purposes, the fee is not transferred.

Our Real Property Agent calls this the "Marginal Street Doctrine."

It's a comment misconception that the cities own the streets and alleys and that we transfer it to the applicant when we vacate right-of-way. Anyone approaching us (Glendale) to vacate right-of-way is required to provide a title report showing both the underlying fee ownership, as well as the ownership of the properties fronting the area proposed to be vacated. We won't vacate it if the underlying fee owner is not the applicant.

Bill A'Hearn, LSIT
City of Glendale

while we are on the subject, a bit different circumstances but, the County owns a strip of land which is a access road, the County would like to relinquish fee title back to the adjoiners but retain a public easement so the users can still have access. Really not a vacation, how do we accomplish? LLA? Any ideas are welcome.

PS this is the middle of nowhere.

Russ,

Couldn't the County quitclaim its fee interest, and reserve a P.U.E.? Provided the strip was not declared a public highway ...

I assume it is an access road and not part of the County maintained road system.

How about a sale with an easement reservation?

How was title vested? In the people or the corporation? Of later, QC will work. If former...as one of the "people", you better get my consent first!

the road is not a part of the County maintained system so no road funds are spent. I have considered by QC, but our Planning dept. questions is it a separate strip or a part of the adjacent parcel? and what about the lenders? Would a Certificate of Compliance be required?

The tile was transferred in fee from the land owners at the time (1969 +/-) to the County.

PS. the County ownership does not touch an existing public easement on either end. the roadway continues to a public road but a portion is without easement due to an un co-operative owner. (in 1969) Yet the road has been in continuous use with the un co-operative owners knowledge.

The County would like to let go of the fee ownership to simplify things.

I don't have time to find the code section right this minute, but if my memory serves me correction "Vacation" of fee owned land, whether a roadway strip or otherwise, requires the local agency to offer the land to the highest bidder, essentially an auction. Vacation of an easement removes the encumbrance, and in the case of where an original subdivision map is unclear as to each lot's underlying fee limits, requires apportioning and consideration of the centerline location.

Streets & Highways Code section 8355:

If the legislative body of a public entity determines that property previously subject to a street, highway, or public service easement, title to which is owned by the public entity, is no long needed by the public:
(a) In the case of property owned by a local agency, the legislative body may sell or exchange the property in the manner, and upon the terms and conditions, approved by the legislative body.

This areas of law is not as clear cut as it might appear. As I suggested above, transfer the liability and exposure to the title company as they are in the risk business.

If it was never improved it may not exist.

The Murray case attached hereto has been edited.

Good luck.

I agree with Evan that the language is fine and makes sense. I agree with Mike shift the burden. One could wind up in a situation of an unknown owner of fee and if that happens a quite title action will ensue.

Good stuff Mr. Ince.
And thank you all as well.
Cheers,