______________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
 State of California
 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN
 Attorney General
 

OPINION : 

: No. 91-105 

of : 

: August 13, 1991

DANIEL E. LUNGREN : 

Attorney General : 

: 

RODNEY O. LILYQUIST : 

Deputy Attorney General : 

: 

THE HONORABLE MICHAEL H. KRAUSNICK, COUNTY COUNSEL OF 

STANISLAUS COUNTY, has requested an opinion on the following question: 

Is a county required to issue certificates of compliance for 15 lots that were described

on a map properly recorded under a predecessor statute to the Subdivision Map Act, as well as local

ordinances enacted thereunder, and for fractions of 17 other lots described on the map, which

fractions were subsequently created by metes and bounds conveyances by deeds in which none of

the lots were identified or recognized? 

CONCLUSION 

A county is required to issue certificates of compliance for 15 lots that were described

on a map properly recorded under a predecessor statute to the Subdivision Map Act, as well as local

ordinances enacted thereunder, and certificates of compliance or conditional certificates of

compliance for fractions of 17 other lots that were described on the map, which fractions were

subsequently created by metes and bounds conveyances in which none of the lots were identified

or recognized. 

ANALYSIS 

We are informed that in 1914 a map was properly recorded under a predecessor

statute to the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code, §§ 66410-66499.37; hereafter "Act"),1 as well as 

local ordinances enacted thereunder, describing 68 lots of approximately 20 acres each in size. None 

of the lots were sold, and subsequent records ignored their existence and described the property as

a single parcel. In 1941 deeds were recorded that conveyed a portion of the property by metes and 

1

All section references hereafter are to the Government Code unless otherwise specified. 

1. 91-105
 
 

 

bounds description.2 The boundaries on the deeds cut through 17 of the lots. What remains today

and the focus of the present inquiry is the area of 15 of the original lots plus the 17 fractions of lots. 

The specific question presented for resolution is whether "certificates of compliance"

(§ 66499.35) must be issued for these lots and fractions of lots. After describing the effects of such

certificates, we will conclude that they must be issued for the 15 lots but not for the 17 fractions of

lots. However, conditional certificates of compliance must be issued for the 17 fractions, if

certificates of compliance are not issued for them. 

Section 66499.35 provides: 

"(a) Any person owning real property . . . may request, and a local agency

shall determine, whether such real property complies with the provisions of this

division and of local ordinances enacted pursuant thereto. Upon making such a

determination the city or the county shall cause a certificate of compliance to be filed

for record with the recorder of the county in which the real property is located. The 

certificate of compliance shall identify the real property and shall state that the

division thereof complies with applicable provisions of this division and of local

ordinances enacted pursuant thereto . . . . 

"(b) If a local agency determines that such real property does not comply with

the provisions of this division or of local ordinances enacted pursuant thereto, it shall

issue a certificate of compliance or a conditional certificate of compliance. A local 

agency may, as a condition to granting a certificate of compliance, impose such

conditions as would have been applicable to the division of the property at the time

the applicant acquired his or her interest therein, and which had been established at

such time by this division or local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto, except that

where the applicant was the owner of record at the time of the initial violation of the

provisions of this division or of local ordinances enacted pursuant thereto, and such

person is the current owner of record of one or more of the parcels which were

created as a result of the grant in violation of the division or local ordinances enacted

pursuant thereto, then the local agency may impose such conditions as would be

applicable to a current division of the property. Upon making such a determination

and establishing such conditions the city or county shall cause a conditional

certificate of compliance to be filed for record with the recorder of the county in

which the real property is located. . . . the fulfillment and implementation of such

conditions shall be required prior to subsequent issuance of a permit or other grant

of approval for development of the property. 

". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."3 

A certificate of compliance thus establishes that the "property complies with the

provisions of [the Act] and of local ordinances enacted pursuant thereto." Such a determination is 

2

A metes and bounds description gives the boundary lines of the property with their terminal

points and angles. Essentially, it is any description other than by reference to particular lots and

parcels on a recorded subdivision map. (See Merritt, Metes and Bounds Descriptions: A Red Flag

Forewarning Possible Subdivision Map Act Violations (Cont.Ed.Bar 1990) 13 Real Prop. L. Rep.

117 (hereafter "Metes and Bounds").) 

3

"This division" is the Act. 

2. 91-105
 
 

 

significant in that divisions of land in violation of the Act may result in criminal prosecution (§

66499.31), rescission of conveyance transactions (§ 66499.32), a claim for damages (§ 66499.32),

a court injunction (§ 66499.33), and the withholding of development permits (§ 66499.34), among

other consequences. ( See Cal. Subdivision Map Act Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 1987) §§ 8.1-8.8, pp.

197-205, hereafter "CEB"; 2 Longtin, Cal. Land Use Regulations (2d ed. 1987) §§ 6.60-6.62, pp.

702-707.) 

The Act's predecessor statutes may be traced back to 1893 as legislation with

statewide impact. (Stats. 1974, ch. 1536; Stats. 1943, ch. 128; Stats. 1937, ch. 670; Stats. 1929, ch.

838; Stats. 1907, ch. 231; Stats. 1893, ch. 80; see Hays v. Vanek (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 271, 289;

64 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 549, 551-552 (1981); CEB, supra, § 1.2, pp. 2-3; 2 Longtin, supra, § 6.02,

pp. 582-583; Metes and Bounds, supra, p. 119.) Even earlier statutes required the mapping of

subdivided public lands and private lands to be sold within individual cities and towns. (See, e.g.,

Stats. 1867-1868, ch. 331 [San Francisco].) 

To what extent and under what conditions do parcels created under one of the Act's

predecessor statutes or in any manner other than pursuant to the current provisions of the Act

"comply" with the Act as it presently reads? 

Section 66412.6 states in part: 

"(a) For purposes of this division or of a local ordinance enacted pursuant

thereto, any parcel created prior to March 4, 1972, shall be conclusively presumed

to have been lawfully created if at the time of the creation of the parcel there was

compliance with any local ordinance or there was no local ordinance in effect which

regulated divisions of land creating fewer than five parcels. 

"(b) For purposes of this division or of a local ordinance enacted pursuant

thereto, any parcel created prior to March 4, 1972, shall be conclusively presumed

to have been lawfully created if any subsequent purchaser acquired that parcel for

valuable consideration without actual or constructive knowledge of a violation of this

division or the local ordinance. Owners of parcels or units of land affected by the

provisions of this subdivision shall be required to obtain a certificate of compliance

or a conditional certificate of compliance pursuant to Section 66499.35 prior to

obtaining a permit or other grant of approval for development of the parcel or unit

of land. . . ." 

With respect to the 15 original lost created in 1914, they were "created prior to March

4, 1972," for purposes of section 66412.6.4 These lots were also created in "compliance with any 

local ordinance" in effect in 1914. Accordingly, the 15 lots in question are "conclusively" presumed

valid under the terms of section 66412.6, subdivision (a). 

With respect to the 17 fractions of lots, they too were created prior to March 4, 1972

for purposes of section 66412.6. However, these fractions of lots were not created until 1941, when 

deeds were recorded conveying portions of the lots by metes and bounds description. We do not 

have the additional fact that the 17 fractions of lots were created in compliance with applicable 1941 

4

The 1972 date is significant in that it was the effective date of the amendments to the Act (Stats.

1971, ch. 1446) requiring a map of divisions of four or fewer parcels. "Before this change, the

requirement of a parcel map for these divisions was left to the dictates of individual cities and

counties." (Metes and Bounds, supra, p. 121; see CEB (Supp. 1990) § 2.18, p. 9.) 

3. 91-105
 
 

local ordinances. In fact, since the 1941 deeds did not create "fewer than five parcels," a map was

required to be recorded under the 1941 version of the Act and local ordinances enacted thereunder.

(See §§ 66424, 66499.30; 58 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 593 (1975) [parcels created under a recorded

subdivision map that had portions of each condemned through eminent domain proceedings required

the filing of a new map in order to sell the remaining portions].) Thus the 17 fractions do not qualify

for the conclusive presumption of section 66412.6, subdivision (a). The fractions would also not 

qualify under subdivision (b) of the statute, since the 1941 violation would be in the "chain of title,"

giving subsequent purchasers actual or constructive knowledge of the violation. (See Keiser v. 

Adams (1970) 2 Cal.3d 976, 979; CEB (Supp. 1990) § 2.18, pp. 9-10; Metes and Bounds, supra, pp.

121-122.) In any event, a certificate of compliance or conditional certificate of compliance must still

be obtained under this subdivision "prior to obtaining a permit or other grant of approval for

development. . . ." 

One other statute requires analysis in order to fully answer the question submitted.

Subdivision (a) of section 66451.10 states: 

"Notwithstanding Section 66424, except as is otherwise provided for in this

article, two or more contiguous parcels or units of land which have been created

under the provisions of this division, or any prior law regulating the division of land,

or a local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto, or which were not subject to those

provisions at the time of their creation, shall not be deemed merged by virtue of the

fact that the contiguous parcels or units are held by the same owner, and no further

proceeding under the provisions of this division or a local ordinance enacted

pursuant thereto shall be required for the purpose of sale, lease, or financing of the

contiguous parcels or units, or any of them."5 

As long as the parcels "have been created under . . . any prior law regulating the division of land . . .

no further proceeding under the provisions of this division or a local ordinance enacted pursuant

thereto shall be required . . . ." (See § 66499.30, subd. (d) [filing a map is not required for any

parcels of a subdivision "in compliance with . . . any law . . . regulating the design and improvement

of subdivisions in effect at the time the subdivision was created"].) 

The 15 lots qualify under section 66451.10 for separate treatment without any further

proceedings under the Act or local ordinances enacted thereunder. (See also § 66468 ["The filing

for record of a final or parcel map by the county recorder shall automatically and finally determine

the validity of such map and when recorded shall impart constructive notice thereto"]; County of Los

Angeles v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. (1970) 3 Cal.App.3d 809, 814 ["The recording of a final tract

map for a normal subdivision automatically converts what was formerly a single parcel into as many

separate lots as appear on the tract map"]; 59 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 239, 241 (1976) ["A parcel once

recorded under the Subdivision Map Act need not be re-recorded so long as it is not further

divided"].) While various statutory means exist to change the configuration of lots described on a

valid subdivision map (see §§ 66412, 66499.11-66499.20 3/4; 64 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 549, 553

(1981)), absence of their description in subsequent deeds of conveyances is not an authorized

method. (See also Civ. Code, § 1093; Hunt v. County of Shasta, supra, 225 Cal.App.3d 432, 437-

439.) Accordingly, the provisions of sections 66412.6 and 66451.10 are consistent in validating the 

5

Section 66424 is the basic provision of the Act defining a "subdivision" as "the division ... of

any unit or units of improved or unimproved land, or any portion thereof ... for the purpose of sale,

lease, or financing, whether immediate or future ...." The article of the Act of which section 

66451.10 is a part deals with the merger of parcels by local ordinance (§§ 66451.10 - 66451.21); a

separate article deals with unmerger. (§§ 66451.30 - 66451.33.) 

4. 91-105
 
15 lots described on the 1914 map, regardless of the later recordation of deeds that failed to refer

to them. 

The 17 fractions of lots are a different matter. They are not identified on the 1914

subdivision map, since they were created by deeds of conveyances in 1941. Their creation violated 

the requirement of a filed subdivision map under the Act or its predecessor statutes. Nonetheless, 

each qualifies for a conditional certificate of compliance under subdivision (b) of 66499.35, if not

a certificate of compliance. As specified in the statute, however, the county may "impose such

conditions as would have been applicable to the division of the property at the time the applicant

acquired his or her interest therein" or conditions applicable to current divisions if the applicant was

the one who caused the violation. (See § 66499.34; Keiser v. Adams, supra, 2 Cal.3d 976, 981; 

CEB, supra, § 8.9, pp. 207-208.) 

In this regard, we note that even if conditional certificates of compliance are issued

for the 17 fractions of lots, the county may prevent development of the lots pursuant to section

66499.34 regardless of when or by whom the violations occurred. Section 66499.34 states in part: 

"No local agency shall issue any permit or grant any approval necessary to

develop any real property which has been divided, or which has resulted from a

division, in violation of the provisions of this division or of the provisions of local

ordinances enacted pursuant to this division if it finds that development of such real

property is contrary to the public health or the public safety. . . ." 

Thus, for example, the county "may refuse to issue a building permit or to grant a rezoning variance

or a conditional use permit for a parcel that results from a division of land that violated the Map Act

. . . [if] based on a finding that development would be contrary to public health and safety." (CEB, 

supra, § 8.6, p. 203.) 

Finally, we necessarily point out that the certificates referred to in section 66499.35

are issued only for purposes of and with respect to the requirements of the Act and local ordinances

enacted thereunder. The same is true regarding the presumptions of section 66412.6 and the

proceedings specified in section 66451.10. Other land use regulations are unaffected by the

certificates and would require compliance with respect to the proposed activity to the extent

applicable under their own statutory schemes and ordinances. 

In answer to the question presented, therefore, we conclude that a county is required

to issue certificates of compliance for 15 lots that were described on a map properly recorded under

a predecessor statute to the Subdivision Map Act, as well as local ordinances enacted thereunder,

and certificates of compliance or conditional certificates of compliance for fractions of 17 other lots

that were described on the map, which fractions were subsequently created by metes and bounds

conveyances in which none of the lots were identified. 

* * * * * 

5. 91-105