Overturning a lower court, the California Supreme Court ruled that because the 19th Century "lot" had never been conveyed separately from other "lots" on the parcel, it cannot be viewed as a separate parcel under the Subdivision Map Act.

The city claimed that because the entire 8,800-square-foot property had been conveyed as one more than 75 years ago, the original 25-foot-wide parcels from 1851 were not legal. An appellate court disagreed.

Legal Briefs: Oct 15, 2017

In a new case from San Diego, the Fourth District says yes, overturning a judge who overturned the City Council. >>read more

Delays in city approval triggered legal fight between landowner and developer. >> read more

In Wal-Mart case, Victorville gets caught between GP, EIR, and parcel map findings. >>read more

The division of one parcel into four noncontiguous pieces via eminent domain does not automatically create four legal parcels and permit the landowner to avoid the Subdivision Map Act, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled. 

"We hold that a 'division' of property within the meaning of the [Subdivision Map] Act does not occur simply because an eminent domain proceeding results in a physical separation of a property's non-condemned portions," wrote Presiding Justice Jim Humes, a former top aide to Jerry Brown for a three-judge panel of the First District. "The owner of such a property is therefore not entitled to a certificate of compliance for each of the resulting separate parts." >> read more