California Surveyors Forums

Is there only one assessor's parcel number?

If so, sounds like one parcel.

It will depend upon whether the lots had ever been conveyed separately. Per Gardner v County of Sonoma (29 Cal App 4th 990, 2003), subdivision maps filed prior to 1929 have no effect as to creating a subdivision unless conveyances are made with reference to the map. It makes no difference whether the map is filed or unfiled.

The reason being that prior to the first SMA (1893), the law did not have a provision for subdivision by map. The owner of the property was still free to describe and convey parcels of the parent parcel any way he wanted, with reference to the map, or completely ignoring the map and describing parcels of a completely different configuration.

So if it was the conveyance that created the parcels, if this particular parcel had always been conveyed as configured in the 1987 deed, there would only be one parcel.

This one calls for a chain of title to see if this configuration goes back to the original conveyance out of the parent parcel or if the various lots or parts thereof had at any time existed as separate parcels.

I've also attached Witt Home Ranch v County of Sonoma, which builds on Gardner and discusses effect of the SMA of 1915 on a 1915 subdivision.

The effect of Witt Home is that if the SMA in effect at the time a map was filed did not authorize the County to impose conditions and restraints with regard to the "design and improvement" of the property, the map simply by being prepared and filed still does not create the lots. Conveyances with reference to the map are still required.

EDIT: I wouldn't go by the Assessor's rolls for determining the number of actual legal parcels. The Assessor creates lines for convenience of assessing taxes, sometimes giving the appearance of more legal lots than actually exist. The Assessor has no role in making or approving legal subdivisions. Assessors (perhaps every assessor) has in various instances shown more lots than actually exist, and in other instances ashown fewer lots than actually exist.

Does it matter (fees or complexity) if there are 2, 3 or 4 parcels? The result of a voluntary merger is one parcel, and that issue didn't come up on the two I remember doing.

I would second Evan's suggestion that you not go by Assessor's rolls. In many cases, all it takes is a request by a single owner of adjoining parcels to merge the lots in the Assessor's system. As long as they're in the same tax rate area, ownership is the same, and they're contiguous, it's only a matter of submitting a request and having a technician do a parcel merger. It doesn't reflect the legal configuration.

not much to go on but here goes:

Don't trust the APN map for # of lots.

They came out of a pre 1893 map, so the map did not create lots. No gray area left there that I know of.

Need to know the prior history in the chain of title. Where these variuos parts owned by separate people , okay lets say they were, and that they were legal conveyances..

tough call... in the Tehama County Case the Appellate Court steered clear of the parcels that were arguably legal because they could find enough descriptions where the authors did not recognize the orginal boundaries. Here they appear to be doing so.

There might be 4 parcels there... but 5 minutes ago I thought there was only one. Scary thought= Happy Halloween.

George Marchenko

Just for curiousity purposes, what is the municipal fee for this voluntary parcel merger?

jasoncamit@sbcglobal.net

In actual fact, I think you may only have one parcel to begin with. That would be my argument if I had to make one in front of a jurisdiction.

The point to take away from Gardner and Witt Home Courts is NOT that old maps do not create lots (they do), but that they do not create maps BY THEMSELVES! They need the assistance of deeds and they need to have been conveyed to others. Unlike modern parcels that are created the instant the map records, these ancient maps are more suggestions of what might be when real documentation is recorded.

If you had a map from 1890 that showed a series of lots, let’s say 10 lots, and 8 of them were conveyed by a deed (even if it referred to the map), then, in all likelihood, the map would gain respect as having been a part of the conveyance process. The two lots that remained in the family would not likely be considered “non-lots” because the intent was to use the map to assist in conveying the parcels.

In the case presented by JLB, the AP Map looks rather like there is a “cartoon map” background over which people conveyed out land in chunks that paid no respect to the underlying map. Look at all the lots that created by the Townsend Addition Map. No respect! Look at the parcels that were carved out without any regard to the configuration of Lots 14 & 15. Heck, even the paper street is afforded no consideration!

So, if it were to my client’s favor, I would argue that the old lots of the Fresno Homestead Tract have never been treated as real lots with the integrity and dignity that real lots should be afforded. Therefore, in accordance with the Gardner and Witt Homes Courts, the underlying parcel lines are nothing more than ancient marks on an ignored paper. There is only one parcel. Now, give it proper description based on current configurations and references to the more modern maps and be done with it!


Now...I'm off to the Chapter Meeting...