California Surveyors Forums

I was recently asked about parcel counts for the purposes of determining the requirement to file a Parcel Map or a Final Map. I cannot remember who I was having this conversation with, but it veered into the question of sequential ownership of parcels.

I opined that the statute wasn’t really clear and that there were no appellate cases that gave us an answer. I also remembered that there is a current question before the Attorney General on this very matter.

The following is a list of the opinion requests by number with the question being asked and the Deputy AG to which the question has been assigned. The first two digits of the number is the year in which the question was asked. I believe the second set of numbers refers to the month and day. It can take some time before the questions are answered; there is one question still on the list that dates from the beginning of February 2014. It is to be hoped that these three questions do not taker as long to answer.

18-902
When a subdivider owns one parcel and subdivides that parcel pursuant to a parcel map, then sells off the resulting new subdivided parcels, and subsequently acquires a contiguous parcel and seeks to divide that parcel pursuant to a parcel map, should the local agency count the previously subdivided contiguous parcels as part of the application?

Medeiros

18-303
How is recordation of maps and surveys to be treated under SB 2?

Binsacca

16-201
May a local jurisdiction require a subdivision applicant to eliminate the designation of a remainder parcel on a tentative parcel map, or require an applicant to provide additional analysis of a remainder parcel that has already been approved for development?

Eisenberg

Ian,

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comments, but you're aware of Bright v. Board of Supervisors? It's always referred to in Map Act classes as the "counting parcels" case.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of ... 28731.html

Dave Ryan,
Arctat, Ca.

Dave,

I am aware of Bright. It has a messy ownership record of interspousal transfers and finicky bits with concurrent ownership, etc. that muddy the waters.

The question was asked of the AG in 18-903 is relative to a "serial subdivider" who buys parcel after parcel, subdividing each and divesting themselves of the subdivided parcels before moving on to the next victim, er, parcel.

Obviously, the questioner in 18-903 agrees that Bright doesn't completely answer the question. I expect that it will be part of the answer. We shall see.

Ian Wilson wrote:The question was asked of the AG in 18-903 is relative to a "serial subdivider" who buys parcel after parcel, subdividing each and divesting themselves of the subdivided parcels before moving on to the next victim, er, parcel.

It's people like this that ruin it for the good guys. Everyone ends up paying the price with increased regulation.

I think you are referring to 4 x 4'ing.

It is my opinion that once you reach four parcels, a Final Map is required, period.

Thoughts to consider.