Merger vs. Reversion to Acreage

[Jedwards]

Hi all,

I’m trying to better understand the distinction between a Merger and a Reversion to Acreage under the Subdivision Map Act.

Per GC 66499.20.3 - A city or county may, by ordinance, authorize the merger of contiguous parcels under common ownership without reverting to acreage. The ordinance shall require the recordation of an instrument evidencing the merger.

This section of the SMA makes me think that as long as the agency allows for a merger it would always be the best option with the fewest steps. Am I missing anything? Are there any situations where a Reversion to Acreage is needed?

Thanks,

Jacob Edwards

[steffan]

Merger is the option for owner initiated merger. However, many (maybe most?) local agencies have not passed the ordinance required for this option. Reversion to acreage is the agency initiated process, where the agency desires to force owners to merge parcels.
Lot line adjustments have been successfully used to merge parcels in some jurisdictions. However each agency has a different thought process and procedure on how this all works.
On a side note, I know of one city that requires owners to pay for a merger process before allowing a lot line adjustment of the subject parcels, which makes absolutely no sense at all.

[John Williams, PLS]

I was involved in a reversion to acreage map a while back. If I recall correctly, the situation was basically to reverse a tract map back to original acreage including previously dedicated roads and the like. The large parcel was then redeveloped in a new configuration.
I believe 66499.20.3 may be a County initiated merger based on contiguous common ownership of sub-standard lots to do not meet code compliance i.e. minimum square footage etc.
Some Counties have a simple merger document, others require a Lot Line Adjustment.
J-Dub

[DWoolley]

These are two distinct statutory tools serving different purposes.

A merger is straightforward. It is the consolidation of contiguous parcels, typically as an administrative remedy to address parcels that were improperly created or that no longer meet current standards.

A reversion to acreage, by contrast, is the formal undoing of a subdivision. For example, a developer records a parcel map creating four lots with dedications to the City or County. A subsequent owner acquires all four lots for a single use, such as agricultural or equestrian purposes. A reversion to acreage eliminates the lot lines and returns the property to undivided acreage status, subject to statutory conditions. The map eliminates the dedications to the public agency authorizing the map.

Importantly, a reversion does not automatically extinguish all rights created by the original subdivision. In 1993, I authored the clarifying language adopted in AB 557, which amended Government Code section 66499.20½ (the so-called “half rule”). That amendment made clear that a reversion to acreage does not extinguish easements or dedications granted to other public or private entities (not the city or county). The change was modest in form, but critical in effect, as it resolved persistent ambiguity regarding the survival of third-party rights following a reversion.

In the more than 35 years of map checking in multiple jurisdictions, I have only reviewed a handful of reversions to acreage.

DWoolley

[DWoolley]

While on the subject of improper subdivision practices, there are jurisdictions that permit mergers of more than four parcels, or worse, tacitly allow and even encourage the serial use of lot line adjustments to achieve the same result.

A common example involves nine existing lots. Four lots are merged into one. Another four lots are merged into a second lot. The remaining three lots are then merged into a third lot. Through a sequence of administrative actions, the practical effect is the merger of more than four parcels without ever complying with the statutory requirements for a subdivision or reversion.

This practice is a transparent end run around the Subdivision Map Act. Fragmenting a prohibited outcome into multiple steps does not legitimize it. The Act regulates results, not clever sequencing.

Proponents often cite Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma in support of this approach. That reliance is misplaced. The case does not stand for the proposition that agencies may evade statutory parcel limits through serial administrative actions. Using it to justify multi-step parcel consolidation is a misreading of both the holding and the intent of the Subdivision Map Act.

Unfortunately for the public, administrative tolerance of these practices ensures there is no shortage of land surveyors willing to operate in the shade and under the cover of darkness. I recently chose professional withdrawal as the map checker of record rather than participate in that conduct. I was advised that my ethics were appreciated, but that the jurisdiction must remain “developer friendly,” and that another surveyor would be engaged to sign the documents.

DWoolley