California Surveyors Forums

I've been asked to do a lot line adjustment in an old subdivision. I already surveyed the block about a decade ago and filed an ROS. This is for the same owner who owns several lots on this block. He wants to move the rear line on between two lots he owns 25' northerly parallel with the current rear line. I can do all the mapping and legal descriptions in the office. No field surveying will be required.

Do you put in a line item for a record of survey on this type of thing? Is it necessarily required?

Let's say he sells one of the lots later after the LLA to another guy who wants you to lay out the foundation for the new house. Now you have to determine that lot line location on the ground. So do you hit the new guy with the ROS requirement?

I know this kind of thing has been discussed before, but I haven't seen much clarity on these kind of issues.

I think it depends (maybe not solely, but at least importantly) on whether or not your previous RofS broke down and annotated the individual lot in question. If you did, then probably it would not be necessary for another RofS. It's one thing if it was fully resolved, annotated, comparing Rec v. Meas., showing existing lines of occupation, etc., quite another if it wasn't.

Lee,

I just looked at that ROS I did and it does annotate and break down the individual lots. So this may be enough to not trigger the ROS.

It's the local agency that approves the LLA that will determine if a ROS is needed and only if that agency has passed an ordinance to that effect.

Mike,

The trigger would be setting new monuments. Since your previous R/S handled the material discrepancy issue, that alone would not trigger the requirement. If, later, the building official wants verification of setbacks, and can live with offsets calculated from the 25' parallel line, no trigger.

It still may be prudent to encourage the owner to set monuments now, and document it. Bit of overkill to file a new R/S, but it is an option and a corner record isn't ...

Would be good to present it as an alternative - bearing in mind you have the drawing already calc'd - and let the owner decide.

<sarcasm on> The County fees will probably kill the proposal! <sarcasm off>

Mike,
I feel if I can do everything from desk without stepping out the door, then there is no way a RoS could be required. I do include the following wording in the Exclusions of all my LLA Proposals;

4. Additional costs incurred as a result of CA law, approval of this proposal constitutes responsibility for any additional charges incurred as the result of CA law.
a. This Proposal and Scope is made with the assumption that there will be no field work involved for any part of this Project.
b. If any field work is required by DF Engineering for this project and in the event that field conditions meet any of the criteria set forth in §8762(b) of the California Business and Professions Code or the Client prefers to have survey monuments set out in the field representing the new parcel configuration, a Record of Survey will be required by state law.
c. By signing this proposal, client accepts responsibility for payment to DF Engineering of the additional costs and fees incurred for preparation and filing of the Record of Survey in addition to those costs associated with the work set forth above should a Record of Survey be required by California Law as described. DF Engineering estimates, at this time, these additional costs to be approximately $x,xxx plus County fees of approximately $700.

I also always attach §8762.

Thanks all for the comments. I appreciate it.

the trigger is establish the new Lot line on the ground, needs a R/S even if no mons. set

RAM wrote:the trigger is establish the new Lot line on the ground, needs a R/S even if no mons. set

How can a new line be established on the ground if you do not have monuments defining the new line?

MikeTurnrose wrote: guy who wants you to lay out the foundation for the new house. Now you have to determine that lot line location on the ground.

once the Location is determined on the ground and the foundation location is established, you have in affect established a property line which is not shown on a map of record therefore triggers the need for an R/S.


Are you willing to risk enforcement action for a few hundred bucks? It would be a simple map to drawn, 3 or 4 hours at the most.

the line should have been adequately defined in the deeds for the LLA, if not that is another issue.

LLA's do not require a RS unless required by the local agency and IIRC they can't legally require one but some owners would rather comply than fight it. Unless you set monuments, then a RS is required per the LS Act.

My son is doing a RS for a 1990s LLA because the new owner wants it monumented

RAM wrote:once the Location is determined on the ground and the foundation location is established, you have in affect established a property line ...

Nope.

put a line item in your proposal for a RS. You have established the line on paper from field work, your previous RS, not someone elses, but yours. That line ain't nowhere to be found in the records.

Don't know for certain if a RS is required, there are brighter bulbs on this forum than me, but I won't do one without filing a RS, cause "MOST OF THE TIME" field work is involved.

If ya don't need one, then you are covered, but at least the owner knows that can be a "requirement".

As you may know, when we wrote the law, we wrote it with the provision that a Record of Survey can not be required. Your choice. SMA:

66412. This division shall be inapplicable to any of the following:

(d) .... The lot line adjustment shall be reflected in a deed, which shall be
recorded. No record of survey shall be required for a lot line
adjustment unless required by Section 8762 of the Business and
Professions Code. A local agency shall approve or disapprove a lot
line adjustment pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act (Chapter 4.5
(commencing with Section 65920) of Division 1).

I agree, LLA does not require a R/S, but once the lot line is established on the ground, as stated in the first post, a R/S must be filed.

unless REQUIRED BY Section 8762....

mpallamary wrote:As you may know, when we wrote the law, we wrote it with the provision that a Record of Survey can not be required. Your choice. SMA:

66412. This division shall be inapplicable to any of the following:

(d) .... The lot line adjustment shall be reflected in a deed, which shall be
recorded. No record of survey shall be required for a lot line
adjustment unless required by Section 8762 of the Business and
Professions Code. A local agency shall approve or disapprove a lot
line adjustment pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act (Chapter 4.5
(commencing with Section 65920) of Division 1).

Mike, you imply that you had a part in writing the law, if so, why not require monuments and a record of survey? Is not the reason for the SMA is to get away from describing and dividing land without a map? I personally think a LLA should be minimally regulated simply because the majority are done to fix a problem between two adjoiners and they should not have to spend their life savings on the review and fee part of getting the job done. I ask because I am in Oregon now and our county surveyor is working on getting a county ordinance passed to make a LLA more like a partition (parcel) map. Sounds like you have already been part of this discussion and I would like to hear your side. Thanks, Jon

Hi,

I will reply when I can. I have been hospitalized with a back injury and am bedridden and not on top of things very well right now. Will reply.

IIRC LLAs were introduced to fix field problems, such as a house in a new tract built too close to the PL or wall built wrong by being able to move a lot line without filing a parcel map which contains big fees.
A company I worked for had a developer client that landscaped his model homes lavishly ignoring the PLs, so every tract we did for him involved LLAs.
My son is monumenting a old LLA and the county RS fee, which is usually zero, is thousands of dollars. Why, because they didn't get the fees during the LLA.
Another issue is hillside lots where the contractor graded to daylight beyond the actual backlines, the fence guys come in and build the half block half iron fences along the top of slope then the owner landscapes to the fence. Not a problem until the next developer finds out the slope he was going to cut back for his lower lots would put the top of slope in patios and swimming pools. Again LLAs came into play.
90% of the "adjustments" to mapping acts is due to extensive fees that govt refuses to reduce, exc in redevelopment properties, and alternate roads are introduced.

mpallamary wrote:Hi,

I will reply when I can. I have been hospitalized with a back injury and am bedridden and not on top of things very well right now. Will reply.

Ouch, hope you feel better soon! Jp

mpallamary wrote:Hi,

I will reply when I can. I have been hospitalized with a back injury and am bedridden and not on top of things very well right now. Will reply.

Best of luck with that Michael. I think a lot of us can relate to back issues in this great profession of ours.

The intent of the legislation and law was to have a process in place wherein property owners can resolve minor disputes between themselves without the heavy handed involvement of the government. Accordingly, by design the process was intended to be simple and inexpensive. The government does not have to get involved with everything.
Here in San Diego, we have a process wherein we can use a parcel map for a lot line adjustment and we set monuments as part of that process. That is what I do and it is a good method. The city does not require a tentative map as there is no discretionary components to it, thus no TPM.
There are times when folks need a simple solution to a simple problem. With regards to ridiculous government review and mapping, in the end, the results are the same except the government took a whole lot of money out of someone's pocket for what?

The idea was and should remain, keep it simple and inexpensive.

Michael, using a Parcel Map in that way, are the fees the same as a regular, full-blown Parcel Map, or something more reasonable?

El Dorado County uses the PM for a LLA between parcels of differing ownership or a RS for an LLA between parcels of common ownership, when a map is required because of an 8762 trigger.

The fees amount to the normal fee to review a RS, plus the fees that the CS would charge to review the descriptions for a LLA where no map is needed. Considerably less than the fees for a PM.

The real savings is in the Planning Dept fees. Last time I did an LLA, the fees were about $400 at Planning, compared to well into 4 figures for a PM.