I own a single parcel of property. Some time ago, a local public agency condemned (in fee simple absolute) a 100-foot strip down the middle of that parcel. How many parcels now exist, and am I entitled to Certificates of Compliance for the parcels that I still own?

Discussion

Excellent question! In my opinion, three parcels were legally created by that condemnation: the condemned 100-foot strip (now in the government’s ownership), and the two remnant parcels (located on either side of that strip), remaining in private ownership. As such, yes, you would be entitled to Certificates of Compliance for the two remnant parcels you still own.

Read the full article here

Excellent question!  In the author’s opinion, yes.  A bit of background may be helpful.   First, we know that the California Supreme Court has determined that subdivision maps properly recordedprior to 1893 did not themselves create legal parcels.   Second, we know that most if not all jurisdictions recognize maps properly recorded after 1929.  So, it is this period between 1893 and 1929 that is now drawing the attention of land use practitioners.

Read the full article here.

This is an excellent question that raises the issue commonly referred to as  “quartering,” or “four-by-fouring” i.e., whether the actively is in fact the successive division of contiguous parcels into four parcels by the common owner of the contiguous parcels.

Read the full article here.

Sometimes it is confusing whether a parcel map or a tentative/final map is required. Would you please explain the applicable rules? I would also appreciate a refresher on subdivisions where the Map Act does not apply.

Discussion

The following are some important basic concepts that help with the determination of whether a parcel map or tentative/final map is required:

¨ Rule of Contiguity. Generally, a subdivision creating five or more lots requires a tentative and final map, whereas the creation of four or fewer lots requires a parcel map. Gov’t Code §§ 66426, 66428. However, sometimes the “accounting” of the number of parcels created over time is not easy. Suppose a subdivider purchases two contiguous lots and seeks to subdivide one of those lots into four new lots. What kind of map is required? A parcel map, because four new lots are created (the original 2 legal lots are not counted). Ten years later, that same subdivider seeks to subdivide the other contiguous lot into two new lots. What kind of map is required? Tentative/final map, because the original lots were held in common ownership, and therefore the original subdivision of 4 is counted against the later lots split of 2 on contiguous property. In other words, two new lots are contiguous to the previous four lots, and therefore are added to and counted with those original four lots for a total of six lots. The later-in-time lot split would be effectuated by a tentative/final map! (Bright v. Board of Supervisors, 66 Cal.App.3d 191 (1977).)

¨ Timing. This contiguity principle is further illustrated by the “timing” case of Bright v. Board of Supervisors case cited above, where a subdivider owned two adjacent parcels. He owned the first parcel as separate property. He owned the second property with his wife as joint tenants. In 1971, the owner transferred a portion of the second property to his wife as her separate parcel. In 1973, he applied for a tentative parcel map proposing to divide the first property into four lots. The court held that the 1971 division and the 1973 division had to be counted together for purposes of determining whether a parcel map or a tentative and final map would be required. Thus, six parcels were created. The fact that the second division occurred later in time did not matter to the court. As long as the same subdivider causes the division, the passage of time does not change the fact that five or more parcels are created.

Continue to read the full article here

Here are the details for the San Diego class:

SAN DIEGO | Thurs., Nov. 10, 2011
San Diego Concourse
202 C Street
Copper Room 227
San Diego, CA 92101

To register for this or other seminar dates visit our seminars page here.

Read the full article here

AB 208 builds upon two earlier legislative extensions given during this prolonged
economic downturn: (1) the 24-month extension granted by AB 333 (Fuentes) in 2009; and
(ii) the 12-month extension granted by SB 1185 (Lowenthal) in 2008. With nearly 2,500
approved tentative maps representing nearly 330,000 housing units in California, this measure is
significant…

Read the full article here

the variety of issues concerning the analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Even the tiniest morsels of new information
are eagerly devoured. Take, for example, the recently published decision by Division One
of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in the case of CREED v. City of San Diego (Case No.
D057524, pub. order 6/10/11). Many observers are pointing to this decision as an important pro-
development victory. Maybe. Maybe not…

Read the full article here

Michael Durkee, Attorney at Law clarified some questions posed by Mayor Chavez relative to the development agreement and that it is only being recorded against the land that the developer has legal interest in. He also addressed what happens as land is acquired per this agreement and what happens if the the land changes hands.