Subdivision Map Act

The validity of a 1915 subdivision map has been rejected by the First District Court of Appeal in a decision that calls into question any subdivision recorded before 1929.

The court determined the 1915 map for a 25-lot subdivision in southern Sonoma County is not valid today because the county had very little discretion under the Subdivision Map Act in place at the time. The decision provides a significant victory to local governments concerned about an untold number of antiquated subdivision maps that do not conform to modern-day land use planning principles.
» read more | add to cart

The owner of two parcels that the City of Berkeley wants to merge may not avoid the merger with a paper transfer of title to his wife, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled. However, the court stopped short of canceling the grant deed, ruling only that the city may be entitled to an injunction prohibiting further transfer of the property title.

» read more | add to cart

The state attorney general cannot recover fees under the Code of Civil Procedure’s “private attorney general” provision, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled in a Tehama County case involving the Subdivision Map Act and the Williamson Act. » read more | add to cart

The newly incorporated City of Goleta had the authority to reject a final subdivision map after the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors had approved the tentative map for property that was in unincorporated territory at the time, the state Supreme Court has ruled.

» read more | add to cart

In its first ruling directly addressing the validity of "antiquated subdivisions," the California Supreme Court has held that maps recorded prior to adoption of the first precursor to the Subdivision Map Act in 1893 do not create legal parcels for today’s purposes.

» read more | add to cart