Title Report with ROS Submittal

User avatar
David Kendall
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:45 pm
Location: Sonoma

Re: Title Report with ROS Submittal

Postby David Kendall » Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:28 am

William Magee wrote:For instance being the twisted interpretation of 8762.5 in Item #7 of the "Submittal Requirements" which states: "Copy of a Certificate or Conditional Certificate of Compliance for parcels/lots/lines not previously shown on a filed map." which is quite a different interpretation of the actual law regarding if parcels are shown on assessment rolls. There are many situations where Sac Co's item #7, if followed, would lead to client's paying wholly unwarranted and costly fees to the county.

I puzzled over that one as well. We had some parcels like that (I find it to be an overbroad description) shown on the RS and in the end elected not to submit the COC as we didn’t have them, just the deed. The reviewing staff did not ask for them. I cannot remember if we sent a title report but I would have sent it if it was in the file and they might find it helpful (only if I was sure that it didn’t raise any new questions for them to worry over)

William Magee
Posts: 257
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:27 pm

Re: Title Report with ROS Submittal

Postby William Magee » Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:28 am

8762.5 is a misunderstood, and as shown hereinbefore, misused section of the law. If you read the section carefully, you will see it specifies who specifically is to provide a statement on the R/S, in effect, that the assessor's omission of parcel boundaries is not reflective of the actual legal boundary status. Although many county surveyors act to the contrary, this section in my opinion, was not to trigger the C.O.C. provisions of the S.M.A. Sections 66499.32-66499.36 "Remedies", but instead to provide a vehicle for surveyors to file Records of Surveys showing legal boundaries with confirmation from the County Surveyor (or City Engineer within incorporated cities) that an assessor's omission is not indicative of legal boundary status.

A prime example of this would be where two or more lots in a platted subdivision have been under common ownership for a period of time. In many times the assessor combines those lots into a single assessment and then shows the individual separating lot lines as dashed instead of as solid lines even though the parcels are not merged under any operation of law.

In this very common situation, 66499.35(d) of the "Remedies" Section of the S.M.A. is clear in that the subdivision plat constitutes a C.O.C. which leads back to the intent of 8762.5 in that the County Surveyor or City Engineer would simply add a statement along the lines that although the Assessor omitted lot lines for convenience, the lines still have legal boundary status. To force a client to pay agency's C.O.C process fees would be wrong especially considering how exorbitant many agencies have made this and how many agencies have this as a planning process as opposed to a county surveyor determination.

Now as to explain my comments from earlier a little further. In the situation where a parcel was legally divided by deed prior to 1974, was subsequently developed and which is currently shown by the assessor as an individually taxed parcel, Sac. County's reliance on 8762.5 in demanding a costly C.O.C. (i.e. per the S.M.A. "Remedies") is an abuse of Government authority and extortion for revenue generation as it applies to the surveyor who is attempting to show legally created boundaries on a Record of Survey as he or she is so duly licensed to do so. In many municipalities, the C.O.C. process is a Planning Department process which can be up to several thousand dollars. I will hand it to Sac Co in that they do properly recognize the C.O.C. process as a function of the County Surveyor. However they lump the C.O.C. costs into a relatively expensive single fee regardless if it is a relatively simple non-conditional C.O.C. or a much more involved conditional one. Most if not all of the R/S's I've prepared which required the County Surveyor certificate per 8762.5 were ones that would take less than an hour to review to understand their rightful legal status and also were ones that would fall under the realm of non-conditional C.O.C.'s.
Last edited by William Magee on Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Don't shoot the messenger.

User avatar
Ian Wilson
Posts: 858
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2002 6:58 am
Location: Bay Area

Re: Title Report with ROS Submittal

Postby Ian Wilson » Thu Sep 13, 2018 7:12 am

I’ll step into this quagmire.

The fundamental principle involved is that the Record of Survey only show the boundaries of legally created lots…or not [§8462.5 PLS Act]. This is one part of the Professional Land Surveyors’ Act (PLS Act) that I have always wondered about.

The Record of Survey does not serve constructive notice. It is not signed by the owner. There is no consent by title holder or beneficiary or trustee. There is no acceptance by the local jurisdiction. In short, it’s just a record of the survey made in the filed by a surveyor who is engaged to perform a service for their client.

So, as the County Surveyor why do I need to ensure that the boundary shown on the map is “…shown on the latest adopted county assessment roll as a unit or as contiguous units…”? That belongs right up there with “…bequeathal of incorporeal herediments, feeoffments, bails, and profits a pendre…” Look those up in your Funk and Wagnalls (or Black’s Law Dictionary).

And, the answer is that I really have no idea. Perhaps Ric can chime in with the history of PLS Act §8762.5.

I’m not sure if the lot needs to have been legally created for a surveyor to locate the boundary of the parcel. If it does, then Subdivision Map Act (SMA) §66412.6(a) gives legal status to any lot created prior to March 4, 1972. Section 66412.6(b) requires subsequent purchasers of such a parcel to obtain a certificate of compliance prior to obtaining a permit to develop the parcel.

SMA §66499.35 covers most (if not all) of the remaining requirements for deeming a parcel as legal, including, (d), the fact that a subdivision map is deemed as the certificate of compliance for that parcel.

If SMA §66499.35(c) is cited because there is a house on the property, does that imply that the current configuration of the boundary is covered or just the configuration at the time the house was built?

So, why the potential request for a title report?

If easements are shown on the Record of Survey, the title report might offer some information that the easement was created and (or not) subsequently terminated. Which goes back to Jim’s suggested revision to the “check list”. Is there a potential for clouding title if an easement is shown that has been extinguished?

Perhaps we need to revisit this PLS Act §8762.5 and re-write it to better explain the purpose or get rid of it all together if it serves not purpose.
Ian Wilson, P.L.S. (CA / NV / CO)
San Mateo County Surveyor

Posts: 12
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 7:20 am

Re: Title Report with ROS Submittal

Postby dharri » Thu Sep 13, 2018 7:35 am

PLS Act Section 8762.5 was an attempt to prevent R of S’s from implying a subdivision of property.

User avatar
Peter Ehlert
Posts: 435
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 2:40 pm
Location: N31°43', W116°39'

Re: Title Report with ROS Submittal

Postby Peter Ehlert » Thu Sep 13, 2018 8:08 am

@dharri Probably true... Record of Surveys were common for land division prior to 1972 when Parcel Maps were invented.
Peter Ehlert

Posts: 547
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 2:50 pm

Re: Title Report with ROS Submittal

Postby Ric7308 » Thu Sep 13, 2018 8:49 am

See attached AB 2513 from 1970 that added 8762.5 to the Act for insight into why this was originally brought forth by the Legislative Author. The 1975 revision was simply related to changes in how the SMA was chaptered in Code.

You can also view past CalSurveyor editions 15 and 16 from this web site which show the CLSA letter to the Governor seeking a veto and a brief report on how CLSA actively opposed this addition to the Act.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Posts: 1867
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: Title Report with ROS Submittal

Postby mpallamary » Thu Sep 13, 2018 8:56 am

For many years, Record of Survey Maps were used as defacto subdivision maps. They were signed by the City Clerk along with the County Engineer. See the attached as an example. They are also the basis for lot determination in San Diego.

Other municipalities used them.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
land butcher
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:26 pm
Location: calif

Re: Title Report with ROS Submittal

Postby land butcher » Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:15 pm

I have old 1990s copies of county assessors data, all show owners names and some even phone numbers and the address of absentee owners. Since the passing of the Save the USA Patriot Act everything except the apn and address are now removed.

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest