Official Map v. Final Map v privately named Subdivision

User avatar
goodgps
Posts: 633
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:32 pm
Location: Modesto, Ca

Official Map v. Final Map v privately named Subdivision

Postby goodgps » Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:47 am

Greetings and happy Spring.

I'm having a debate with a guy who believes that an old Subdivision Map for which a few lots remain unbuilt upon, is null. He believes that the unbuilt lots are automatically merged than therefor need to be re-subdivided in order to be valid. He states that neither the Title of the map NOR any certificates, contain the words "Official Map" or "Final Map" pursuant to Section 66499.35(d) . He indicates that under that Code, the unbuilt lots don't comply and cannot receive a certificate of Compliance for building. (note there are different Owners for each of the few unbuilt lots)
I contend that under Section 66499.56 "the map shall become an official map for all the purposes of this division when certified, filed and bound, but not before."
This particular Map of (blank) Estates has copious certificates, all duly signed and notarized, has been duly filed with Book and Page in the subject County PLUS it lists lot numbers. Block Numbers and Street names. Nearly all of the Lots shown on the map have been developed. Underground utilities have been installed as well. NONE of the subsequent grant deeds indicate merging lots NOR has the City / County issued such a merger.

An answer to one question that someone may have is this: Yes, the Client fully intends to comply with current building codes.

Hopefully someone can add to this ?

Thank you all "Good"

User avatar
Warren Smith
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:41 am
Location: Sonora

Re: Official Map v. Final Map v privately named Subdivision

Postby Warren Smith » Mon Mar 22, 2021 8:14 am

The SMA sections 66499.50 et seq. deal with official maps authorized by the local agency for compiling previously platted final maps into a renumbered entity as a whole. In your area, you can find Linden, Lockeford, Clements, and others which were done in the 1950s.

Once a final map has been filed, all lots shown thereon are simultaneously created. This applies to all maps filed after 1893 pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act. Prior to that, "Antiquated Subdivisions" have been determined to depict lots for sale, and those not sold are held to be unsubdivided.

Warren
Warren D. Smith, LS 4842
County Surveyor
Tuolumne County

User avatar
hellsangle
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:31 am
Location: Sonoma, CA

Re: Official Map v. Final Map v privately named Subdivision

Postby hellsangle » Mon Mar 22, 2021 8:31 am

Well said, Warren.

What Warren may be referring to is: Gardner v Sonoma County (attached).

Sounds legal 'n separate to me . . . but the contrary may be shown.

Phil - Sonoma
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Ian Wilson
Posts: 947
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2002 6:58 am
Location: Bay Area

Re: Official Map v. Final Map v privately named Subdivision

Postby Ian Wilson » Mon Mar 22, 2021 8:33 am

Sounds an awful lot like the situation on Laurel Way in Redwood City.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Ian Wilson, P.L.S. (CA / NV / CO)
Alameda County Surveyor

User avatar
goodgps
Posts: 633
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:32 pm
Location: Modesto, Ca

Re: Official Map v. Final Map v privately named Subdivision

Postby goodgps » Tue Mar 23, 2021 7:16 am

Thanks,

After trying to read these, I don't see where the Lot Owners can obtain a COC for their Lot and build their home. Unless I am totally mis-understanding these cases, it appears that the courts denied development. Please correct me if I have misinterpreted the final decision.

Thanks Guys

User avatar
steffan
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:44 pm
Location: N CA

Re: Official Map v. Final Map v privately named Subdivision

Postby steffan » Tue Mar 23, 2021 7:54 am

In addition to the "prior to 1893" trigger W. Smith refers to (i.e. Gardner v Sonoma), you should also be aware of some later decisions regarding antiquated subdivisions AFTER 1893. See Abernathy Valley v Solano Co and Witt Home Ranch V Sonoma Co.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
goodgps
Posts: 633
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:32 pm
Location: Modesto, Ca

Re: Official Map v. Final Map v privately named Subdivision

Postby goodgps » Wed Mar 24, 2021 7:56 am

Ok,
Thanks for the court cases. I may be dealing with a staunch individual who is basing the Lot rejection solely upon the lack of the words "Official Map" on the old subdivision map. Section 66499.35 (d) states "A recorded final map, parcel map, official map, or an approved . . . . . "

So, If the duly certified and recorded map of Timbuck-Too (circa late 1920's) was filed in accordance with laws an regulations at the time, AND lots were sold (conveyed) wouldn't the map be a "Final Map" ? The words "Final Map" don't appear anywhere on the map title or certificates. Is there a statute that confirms duly filed maps as "Final Maps" ? If so, I can make the argument for 66499.35(d)

User avatar
Warren Smith
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:41 am
Location: Sonora

Re: Official Map v. Final Map v privately named Subdivision

Postby Warren Smith » Wed Mar 24, 2021 8:09 am

Final maps are those of five or more lots. The alternative is a parcel map or, of course, an authorized official map (compilation).

Final maps are colloquially known as Tract Maps, and they are named or numbered, but they are, in fact, final maps - in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act in effect at the time of filing.
Warren D. Smith, LS 4842
County Surveyor
Tuolumne County

User avatar
Ian Wilson
Posts: 947
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2002 6:58 am
Location: Bay Area

Re: Official Map v. Final Map v privately named Subdivision

Postby Ian Wilson » Wed Mar 24, 2021 8:28 am

Well, there you are. That comment about "Official Maps" is a tell that the person needs more training and should not be dealing with such issues until the training can be arranged.

Official Maps are a real thing. See Government Code - Title 7. Planning And Land Use - Division 3. Official Maps §66499.50 - §66499.58 for details.
Ian Wilson, P.L.S. (CA / NV / CO)
Alameda County Surveyor

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 2799
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: Official Map v. Final Map v privately named Subdivision

Postby mpallamary » Wed Mar 24, 2021 10:44 am

Here's one for your consideration. A hypothetical case. A property owner relied on the attached map for purchase of her property.

Warren, I don't recall if I ran this one by you before.

Thoughts anyone?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests