Subd Maps 1893-1929 per Map Act

[RCsurveyor]

The question is are the lots shown on these maps, in conformance with the map act reqiurements, creating legal lots. If they do then are they legal and then certicates of compliance should be issued.

What is the current policy out there in your areas?

Sonoma County is on the move to not recognize these lots. We are in the appeal process of the ruling.

[Dane Ince]

I believe that local practice does not matter in this Case since there is a California Supreme court Ruling on Ancient Lots called the Gardiner Case. If the lots were creatred prior to any subdivision map act and were never conveyed as individual lots, then the mapped lots are not legal lots according to the Gardiner ruling. It seems that your lots were created after there was a subdivision map act in place. You should be granted a certificate of compliance on all lots which were conveyed prior to March of 1972. Bring the local agency's attention to the Gardiner Case and you should get what you want.

[Jim Frame]

I think much depends upon whether or not the subdivision was created in compliance with whatever iteration of the Map Act that was in force at the time. In Hays v. Vanek(1989, 217 Cal.App.3d 271, 266 Cal.Rptr. 856) the court found that lots in a 1926 subdivision that was created in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of the 1907 Map Act and had never been individually sold were not eligible for the exemptions provided for in the 1929 Act. However, from the wording of the decision I infer that the court would have looked differently upon lots in the same subdivision that had already been transferred as individual lots.

Can you tell us more about the nature of the subdivisions currently under challenge?

[RCsurveyor]

The map I am working with is 1894 prepared by the County Surveyor. It is in compliance with the 1893 Map act.

The County of Sonoma is working to get maps before 1929 to not be recognized. They say that the court in the Gardner case referenced to design and improvements review by the governing body. They wanted the court to answer their position in Gardner, the Court said that they did not have to in this case. This is the next round with Sonoma County in the lead again.

What is happening in the other Counties? Are any pushing for the same on these maps?

[Jim Frame]

Were any of the 1894 lots sold off as individual lots, or were all conveyances made as metes-and-bounds or as large groups of contiguous lots? This question may be germane to the matter, as the court in Hays v. Vanek wrote:

"The purposes underlying the various enactments of the Subdivision Map Act have been to control the design of subdivisions for the benefit of adjacent landowners, prospective purchasers and the public in general. (See Pratt v. Adams (1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 602, 605-606 [40 Cal.Rptr. 505].) The clear purpose of the so-called "grandfather" clause is to protect developers who have detrimentally relied on an earlier state of the law. [13b] That purpose is hardly served by allowing later purchasers of property which has never been sold in subdivided form to take advantage of an exemption. In such cases, the later purchaser placed no reliance on the prior state of the law. On the other hand, the salutary purposes served by the Subdivision Map Act would be frustrated if a simple staking out and selling of a handful of parcels in the late 1920's could exempt all land in the subdivision 60 years and several owners later from any subdivision [217 Cal.App.3d 290] regulatory requirements. In simple terms, the purpose of the statutory exemption does not support a conclusion that it runs with the land."

[RCsurveyor]

Yes there was lots sold in this map just that these 3-20 acre lots were never sold seperately. They were sold by reference to the map and lot numbers.

[Gary O]

Athough often quoted with regards to this arguement, the Gardner case has nothing to do with 1893-1929 maps. In fact, they steered clear of them stating in footnote 7 of the decision:

"Certain amici curiae in support of the County assert that only maps recorded under the 1929 predecessor to the Map Act or subsequent statutes legally created parcels.... Conversely, the California Attorney General has opined that maps recorded under earlier predecessor statutes to the Act should also be deemed to create parcels...... WE NEED NOT RESOLVE THAT DISPUTE IN THIS CASE, FOR THE MAP AT ISSUE HERE PREDATES THE EARLIEST PREDECESSOR STATUTE ENACTED IN 1893."

[phil]

Hello Gary-OOOOO!

A Certificate of Compliance application was submitted in August 2002 . . . for a subdivision lot(S), (30-Maps-27), in Sonoma County . . . September 2003 - it was denied due to Planning's "read" of the Gardner case (regarding 1929 issue). However, if there was a "deed" conveying this lot, they would grant a C.O.C.??!! Make sense? It appears to settle the dust in Sonoma County, somebody with beaucoup $$$$s must go fishing with the courts . . .

PS (keep up your exemplary work at the County Surveyor's Office! Same goes for the your Recorder's Office - EXEMPLARY!)

[Gary O]

Hey Phil,

The planner is no doubt following County Counsel's direction and in Forrest Gump's wise words ".....and that's all I'm gonna say about that."

Thanks for the kind words!

[RCsurveyor]

This round it is the pre 1929 maps next round it will be the pre 1970's map when the EIR review can in to being. They will say that map pre EIR's didn't have a complete review and therefore the lots are not created properly and therefore merged.
We surveyors need to speak up for our clients property rights. So what is happening to the rest of the State?