California Surveyors Forums

Can someone explain to me why some City's decide to call a Parcel Merger a Lot Line Adjustment. Their example even shows the lines being deleted and one lot resulting. There is a provision in State Law for this, so why not call it a Parcel Merger. Is it because they didn't bother to enact their own local ordinance (as the State Law stipulates)?

SMA section 66451.11 states that a local agency may, by ordinance which conforms to and implements the procedures prescribed by this article, provide for the merger of a parcel with a contiguous parcel. This is known as a permissive statute.

Section 66451.10 (b) states that the local agency is not limited in its authority with respect to, among other procedures, lot line adjustments.

So, if said local agency has not adopted an ordinance to implement lot mergers, it may do so under a conforming lot line adjustment process.

It may be inelegant, but is compliant as to the end result.

What Mr. Smith said. If no ordinance exists, LLA process must be used.

I guess we're moving the line underneath an existing one! No one can see it, so it's not there!

Gromatici wrote:I guess we're moving the line underneath an existing one! No one can see it, so it's not there!

Or someone in Planning doesn't truly understand the SMA? Does this city have a staff surveyor, or do they use a contract?
You may want to see who is "approving the document", and I hope they are a licensed land surveyor as required under Section 8761(e) of the PLS Act.

Good luck!!!

From the Continuing Education of the Bar:
A local agency may adopt an ordinance authorizing the merger of contiguous parcels under common ownership without going through the procedures for formal reversion to acreage. The ordinance must require that an instrument be recorded evidencing the merger. Govt C 66499.20.3

But such an ordinance would defeat the purpose of fee collections. How much would it cost to record an 81/2" x 11 "instrument" versus parcel map?

Yep, it's Crazy Phil again . . .
Surveyor to Recorder

hellsangle wrote:From the Continuing Education of the Bar:
A local agency may adopt an ordinance authorizing the merger of contiguous parcels under common ownership without going through the procedures for formal reversion to acreage. The ordinance must require that an instrument be recorded evidencing the merger. Govt C 66499.20.3

But such an ordinance would defeat the purpose of fee collections. How much would it cost to record an 81/2" x 11 "instrument" versus parcel map?

Yep, it's Crazy Phil again . . .
Surveyor to Recorder

Who says a LLA needs to be done by parcel map? Most I've seen are 8.5"x11" instruments, albeit it might be a few more pages than your typical merger document. It is nice when the developer chooses to do a parcel map because then the new lot lines tend to get monumented. The local agency I worked for even created a new line item for LLA by parcel map fee to match the LLA by agreement fee, so developer's wouldn't have to pay the typical parcel map processing fee for a LLA by parcel map. Anyone who thinks that government agencies oppose streamlining just so they can collect more plancheck fees has clearly never worked in government.

If the City or County does not have a local ordinance to allow a property owner to voluntarily merge parcels, then an LLA is the next best option, usually.

George Marchenko