Source: https://store.ceb.com/california-subdivision-map-act-and-the-development-process
Timestamp: 2020-07-03 19:10:26
Document Index: 177791377

Matched Legal Cases: ['§66427', '§66474', '§66452', '§66452', '§66452', '§4', '§65915', '§4', '§66452', '§66452', '§5', '§65700', '§6', '§25213', '§6', '§53313', '§6', '§10']

California Subdivision Map Act and the Development Process | CEB
Subdivisions covered by the Map Act
Required maps: parcel maps versus final maps
Attorney’s role in processing subdivision maps
Using vesting tentative map to acquire vested development rights
Certification forms necessary for formal compliance with Map Act
OnLAW RE94250
Print RE33250
History, Purpose, and Preemption
A. Earliest Enactments (1893–1943) 1.2
B. McCarthy Act Amendments (1971) 1.3
C. Recodification (1974–1975) 1.4
D. Subdivision Map Act Changes: 1893–1965 1.4A
III. PURPOSES OF MAP ACT
A. Uniform Mapping Standards 1.5
B. Regulation and Control of Subdivisions 1.6
C. Dedications and Improvements 1.7
A. Sources of Local Power 1.8
B. Early Case Law; Strict Interpretation of Design and Improvement Standards 1.9
C. Recent Trends: Local Measures Not Directly in Conflict With Map Act Upheld
1. Need Explicit Legislative Intent to Preempt 1.10
2. Must Clearly Conflict With Map Act 1.11
D. Measures Directly Conflicting With Map Act 1.12
V. RELATIONSHIP TO SIMILAR LAWS
A. Subdivided Lands Act 1.13
B. Land Surveyors’ Act 1.14
C. Other Land Use Authorizations 1.15
Subdivisions Covered by Subdivision Map Act
I. DEFINITION OF “SUBDIVISION”
A. Significance 2.1
B. Need to Investigate Metes and Bounds and Similar Descriptions 2.2
C. Elements of Definition 2.3
1. Division 2.4
a. Conveyance Creating Exclusive Right of Occupancy May Be a “Division” 2.5
b. Deed of Trust on Portion of Property; Partial Reconveyance 2.6
2. Subdivider 2.7
3. Improved or Unimproved Land 2.8
4. Assessment Roll 2.9
5. Contiguous Units 2.10
6. Sale, Lease, or Financing 2.11
a. Transfers by Devise; Tax Collector Sales 2.12
b. Gifts 2.13
7. Immediate or Future 2.14
II. EXEMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
A. Financing or Leasing Units Within Certain Buildings 2.15
B. Agricultural Leases 2.16
C. Lot Line Adjustments 2.17
1. Only Limited Conditions May Be Imposed 2.18
2. Need for Deed, Record of Survey 2.19
3. Parcels Held in Different Ownership 2.20
4. Liens Must Be Modified 2.21
5. Mobilehome Parks and Manufactured Housing Communities 2.22
6. Coastal Act Applies 2.23
D. Conversion of Community Apartment Project or Stock Cooperative to Condominiums 2.24
E. “Granny” and Accessory Dwelling Units 2.25
F. Cemetery Purposes 2.26
G. Other Exemptions 2.27
H. Conveyances to or From Public Entities or Utilities 2.28
I. Waivers for Certain Mobilehome Park and Floating Home Marina Conversions
1. Application of Waiver 2.29
2. Form: Mobilehome Park Petition and Disclosure Statement for Conversion Into Resident-Owned Project 2.30
3. Form: Floating Home Marina Petition and Disclosure Statement for Conversion Into Resident-Owned Project 2.30A
III. MERGER AND “UNMERGER” OF PARCELS
A. Derivation of Merger Concept 2.31
B. Procedure for Merger
1. Determining Which Parcels May Be Merged by Local Agency 2.32
2. Procedural Steps 2.33
C. “Unmerger” 2.34
D. Recognition of Lawfully Created Parcels
1. The Problem 2.35
2. Recognition of Previously Created Parcels 2.36
3. Pre-1893 Mapped Lots 2.37
4. Post-1893 Mapped Lots 2.38
5. Presumption of Lawfully Created Parcels 2.39
6. Lots Created by Deed or Federal Patent 2.40
Determining Which Map Is Required
I. TENTATIVE AND FINAL MAPS
A. Purpose of Dual Map Requirement 3.1
B. General Rule: Subdivisions Creating Five or More Parcels or Units Require Tentative and Final Maps 3.2
C. Counting Parcels
1. Successive Divisions by Same Subdivider or Related Owners Are Treated as Single Subdivision 3.3
2. Remainder Parcels
a. Remainder Parcels Are Not Counted as a Parcel 3.4
b. Subsequent Transfer Does Not Require Map But May Require Certificate of Compliance 3.5
3. Conveyances to Public Entities and Public Utilities Are Not Counted as Parcels 3.6
D. Vesting Tentative Maps
1. Alternative to Conventional Tentative or Parcel Map 3.7
2. Local Requirements Must Be Considered in Assessing Advantages of Vesting Tentative Map 3.8
II. PARCEL MAPS
A. General Rule: Subdivisions of Four or Fewer Parcels or Units Require a Parcel Map 3.9
B. Exceptions: Parcel Map May Be Filed for Some Subdivisions of Five or More Parcels or Units 3.10
1. Land of Fewer Than Five Acres 3.11
2. Parcels of 20 or More Acres 3.12
3. Industrial or Commercial Development 3.13
4. Parcels of 40 or More Acres 3.14
5. Environmental Subdivisions 3.15
C. Waiver of Parcel Map Requirement 3.16
III. MAP REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENTS
A. General Rule 3.17
B. Once Map Is Approved for Condominium Project, Further Division May Not Require Additional Map 3.18
C. Design Issues; Relationship of Govt C §66427 to Other Statutes and Local Ordinances 3.19
D. Airspace Divisions 3.20
IV. SUBDIVISIONS INVOLVING PUBLIC AGENCIES AND PUBLIC UTILITIES 3.21
I. ATTORNEY’S ROLE IN MAJOR PROJECTS
A. Need for Project Team 4.1
B. Due Diligence 4.2
1. General Plan 4.3
2. Zoning Ordinances 4.4
3. Annexation 4.5
4. CEQA 4.6
5. Applicable Appeal Periods 4.7
1. Review of Project Conditions 4.8
2. Drafting and Negotiating Development Agreement 4.9
3. Processing Entitlements as a “Package” 4.10
D. Appearance at Hearings 4.11
II. GENERAL AND SPECIFIC PLANS 4.12
A. Checklist: Land Use Approvals and Permits 4.13
B. General Plan 4.14
1. Required Elements of General Plan 4.15
2. Adequacy of General Plan 4.16
3. Consequences of Inadequate General Plan 4.17
C. Specific Plans 4.18
D. Consistency of Maps With General and Specific Plans 4.19
A. Regulation Through Zoning 4.20
B. Traditional Zoning 4.21
C. Planned Development Zoning 4.22
D. Relationship of Zoning to General Plan 4.23
E. Zoning Amendment Process 4.24
F. Relationship of Zoning Regulations to Map Act 4.25
A. Conditional Use Permits 4.26
B. Variances 4.27
C. Nonconforming Uses 4.28
D. Density Bonuses and Other Incentives 4.29
E. Interim Ordinances 4.30
F. Prezoning 4.31
G. California Environmental Quality Act 4.32
1. Ascertaining CEQA Applicability 4.33
2. Exemptions 4.34
3. Initial Study 4.35
4. Negative Declaration 4.36
5. Environmental Impact Report 4.37
6. Attorney’s Role in CEQA Review 4.38
H. Wetlands and Endangered Species Laws 4.39
1. Clean Water Act 4.40
2. Streambed Alteration Permit 4.41
3. Coastal Zone Permit 4.42
4. Endangered Species Act 4.43
I. Agricultural Preserves Under Williamson Act 4.44
J. Open Space and Conservation Easements 4.45
Processing Subdivision Maps: Attorney’s Role
I. OVERVIEW OF ATTORNEY’S FUNCTIONS 5.1
A. Dealings With Local Officials 5.2
1. Brown Act Issues 5.3
2. Political Reform Act Issues 5.4
1. Protecting Client’s Procedural Rights 5.5
2. Need for Adequate Findings 5.6
A. Specification by Local Ordinance 5.7
B. Tentative Maps
1. Time and Method of Filing 5.8
2. Application Requirements 5.9
3. City Notifies Other Agencies of Filing 5.10
4. Agency Determines Whether Application Is Complete 5.11
5. Signed Statement on Hazardous Waste 5.12
6. Preannexation Filings 5.13
a. Under Subdivision Map Act 5.14
(1) “Deemed Approval” 5.15
(2) Advisory Agency With Approval Power 5.16
(3) Advisory Agency That Reports to Legislative Body 5.17
(4) No Advisory Agency 5.18
b. Under CEQA 5.19
c. Under Permit Streamlining Act 5.20
(1) “Deemed Complete” 5.21
(2) “Deemed Approval” 5.22
(3) Pre-1986 “Deemed Approval” Provisions 5.23
(4) Public Notice Requirements 5.24
(5) Waiver Does Not Apply 5.25
(6) Approvals by Other Agencies 5.26
(7) Agency May Not Deny Project Merely to Meet Deadline 5.27
d. Tentative Map Duration 5.28
(1) Tentative Map Extension 5.28A
(2) Effect of Development Moratorium 5.29
(3) Coordinating Expiration Date of Other Permits and Development Agreement 5.30
(4) Applying for Litigation “Stay” 5.30A
(5) Conditions Imposed on Extensions 5.31
(6) Extensions for Multiple Final Maps 5.32
8. Vesting Tentative Maps 5.33
a. Procedures Established by Local Law 5.34
b. Information Required 5.35
C. Final Maps 5.36
1. Compliance With Conditions of Tentative Map Approval Is Required 5.37
2. Exemption for Certain Off-Site Improvements 5.38
3. Requirements for Preparation 5.39
4. Newly Incorporated Cities 5.40
5. Annexation to City 5.41
D. Parcel Maps 5.42
E. Chart: Steps in Map Processing 5.43
Regulation of Subdivisions: The Police Power, Dedication, and Impact Fees
I. SOURCE OF LOCAL POWER TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS 6.1
A. Definitions of “Exaction” and “Dedication” 6.2
B. Rationale of and Objections to Subdivision Exactions 6.3
1. Double Taxation 6.4
2. Equal Protection 6.5
II. PROPER EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER 6.6
A. Development: A Privilege or a Right? 6.7
B. Limitations on Police Power 6.8
III. LEADING CASE LAW—THE NOLLAN, DOLAN, EHRLICH, AND KOONTZ DECISIONS 6.9
A. Nollan v California Coastal Comm’n 6.10
B. Dolan v City of Tigard 6.11
C. Nollan/Dolan as Applied to Impact Fees: Ehrlich v Culver City 6.12
D. Summary of Nollan/Dolan After Ehrlich 6.13
E. Koontz v St. Johns River Water Management District 6.13A
IV. CALIFORNIA’S “NEXUS” LEGISLATION— THE MITIGATION FEE ACT 6.14
A. What Is a Fee? 6.15
B. Required Findings for Imposition of Fees 6.16
C. Use of Fees 6.17
D. Fees for Residential Projects 6.18
E. Processing Fees 6.19
F. Challenging Fees 6.20
G. Developing the Record 6.21
Use of Local Government Districts to Provide Services and Facilities
A. Scope of Chapter 6A.1
B. Role of Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) in Forming Service Districts 6A.2
II. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF USING SPECIAL DISTRICTS TO PROVIDE SERVICES AND FACILITIES
A. Creation of Additional Layers of Government 6A.3
B. Differences in Range of Functions and Powers 6A.4
C. Differences in Financing Capabilities 6A.5
D. Public Access Requirement 6A.6
E. Voter Apathy 6A.7
F. Conflicts Arising From Different Missions of Public and Private Organizations 6A.8
G. Enforcement Power 6A.9
H. Punitive Damages Claims 6A.10
I. Statutes of Limitations 6A.11
III. TYPES OF SERVICE DISTRICTS 6A.12
A. Single-Purpose Districts 6A.13
B. County Service Areas
1. Statutory Authorization 6A.14
2. Formation 6A.15
a. By Petition 6A.15A
b. By Application by the Board of Supervisors 6A.15B
c. LAFCO Proceedings 6A.15C
d. LAFCO Action on Proposal 6A.15D
e. Zones 6A.15E
3. Authorized Functions 6A.16
C. Community Services Districts
1. Statutory Basis 6A.17
a. By Petition 6A.18
b. By Application by Legislative Body 6A.19
c. LAFCO Action on Petition or Application 6A.20
d. LAFCO Proceedings 6A.21
3. Authorized Functions 6A.22
4. Additional Functions for Specified Districts 6A.23
5. General Powers 6A.24
6. Community Service Districts Management 6A.25
IV. FINANCING SERVICE DISTRICTS AND AGENCIES
A. Effect of Propositions 13 and 218 on Local Agency Financing Powers 6A.26
B. Effect of Proposition 13 on California Real Property Taxes 6A.27
C. Cases Interpreting Proposition 13 6A.28
1. Special Tax Limitation Applies Only to Taxes Earmarked for a Special Purpose 6A.29
2. Enabling Legislation Required for Special Tax Levy 6A.30
3. Voter Approval Required for General Fund Tax 6A.31
4. Ad Valorem Property Taxes Must Be Based on Property’s Assessed Value 6A.32
5. Local Governments Can Incur Bonded Indebtedness 6A.33
6. Special Assessments Not Subject to Voter Approval Requirement 6A.34
7. Development Fees Exempted From Proposition 13 Restrictions 6A.35
D. Effect of Proposition 218 on Local Agency Financing Power in California 6A.36
1. Definition of “Special Tax” Under Proposition 218 6A.37
2. Effect of Proposition 218 on Existing Taxes 6A.38
3. Confirmation of Initiative Power 6A.39
4. Effect of Proposition 218 on Mello-Roos Taxes 6A.40
5. Proposition 218’s Restrictions on Assessment Powers 6A.41
6. Special Benefits Versus General Benefits 6A.42
7. Proposition 218 Requirements Applicable to All Assessments 6A.43
a. Calculation Component 6A.44
b. Notice Component 6A.45
c. Property Owner Approval Component 6A.46
8. Impact of Proposition 218 on Property-Related Fees and Charges 6A.47
9. Summary of Voter Approval Requirements for Taxes, Assessments, and Fees Under Proposition 218 6A.48
E. County Service Area Taxing and Bonding Authority
1. Taxing Powers 6A.48A
a. Special Taxes and Benefit Assessments 6A.49
b. Fees and Charges 6A.50
2. Bonding Authority 6A.51
F. Community Service District Financing Authority
1. Bonding Authority 6A.52
2. Taxing Authority 6A.53
G. Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts
1. Statutory Basis 6A.54
2. Mello-Roos Financing and Proposition 13 6A.55
3. Services That May Be Financed Through Mello-Roos Districts 6A.56
4. Facilities That May Be Financed Through Mello-Roos Districts 6A.57
5. Formation of Mello-Roos Districts 6A.58
a. Resolution of Intention 6A.59
b. District Boundaries 6A.60
c. Establishment of Appropriations Limit 6A.61
d. Report Regarding Proposed Services or Facilities 6A.62
e. Public Notice Requirements 6A.63
f. Protests to Establishment of District; Public Hearing 6A.64
g. Resolution of Formation 6A.65
h. Election to Approve Special Taxes
(1) Procedure 6A.66
(2) Eligibility to Vote 6A.67
(3) Election by Mail Ballot 6A.68
i. Levy of Special Tax
(1) Statutory Authorization 6A.69
(2) Use of Proceeds of Special Tax 6A.70
(3) Collection of Special Tax 6A.71
(4) Foreclosure Proceedings 6A.72
(5) Fees and Charges 6A.73
(6) Report by County Auditor 6A.74
(7) Notice Requirements Concerning Special Tax on Subdivision Lots 6A.75
(8) Prepayment of Special Tax 6A.76
j. Recordation of District Map and Notice of Levy 6A.77
k. Mello-Roos Bonding Authority
(1) Statutory Requirements 6A.78
(2) Bonds Issued to Pay for Services Within Improvement Area 6A.79
(3) Expenses Included in Issuing Bonds 6A.80
(a) Formalities; Permissible Interest Rate 6A.81
(b) Tax-Exempt Status 6A.82
(c) Certification by State Treasurer [Deleted] 6A.83
(d) Refunding Bonds 6A.84
(5) Bond Anticipation Notes 6A.85
l. Changes in Facilities, Services, or Special Taxes Subsequent to District Formation 6A.86
(1) Legislative Initiative 6A.87
(2) Voter or Landowner Petition 6A.88
(3) Public Hearing 6A.89
Acquiring Vested Rights
II. VESTED RIGHTS DOCTRINE
A. Common Law Rule
1. Description and Scope of Doctrine 7.2
2. Practical Application of Doctrine 7.3
3. Description of and Policy Reason for Vested Rights Rule 7.4
B. Map Filing Freeze 7.5
C. “One-Bite-of-the-Apple” Rule for Residential Subdividing 7.6
III. VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS
A. Legislative Background 7.7
B. Scope of Vested Right
1. Protections Against Changes in Law 7.8
2. What Constitutes Ordinance, Policy, or Standard 7.9
3. Local Agency May Impose Reasonable Conditions 7.10
4. Exceptions to Rule 7.11
C. Duration of Vested Right 7.12
D. Conditional Approvals 7.13
E. Vesting Map Amendments 7.14
F. Map Processing 7.15
A. Purpose 7.16
B. Legislative Act Subject to Referendum 7.17
C. Parties 7.18
D. Property in Unincorporated Territory 7.19
E. Who Is Bound by Agreement 7.20
F. Contents of Agreement 7.21
G. Approval and Recording Procedures 7.22
H. Protection Afforded Developer 7.23
I. Statutes of Limitations for Development Agreements 7.23A
J. Validity of Development Agreements
1. Constitutionality 7.24
2. Drafting to Avoid Invalidity 7.25
V. PROS AND CONS OF VESTING MECHANISMS 7.26
I. AUTHORIZING PROVISIONS FOR DEDICATIONS AND FEES 8.1
II. TACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR SUBDIVIDER’S ATTORNEY
A. Ascertain Whether Local Government Adopted Enabling Ordinances 8.2
B. Review Conditions for Clarity 8.3
C. Ascertain Whether Fees Are for Impermissible Purpose 8.4
III. CONDITIONS IN MAP ACT AND RELATED STATUTES
A. Requirements for Subdivisions 8.5
1. Street, Bicycle Path, and Transit Facility Dedications 8.6
2. Solar Access Easements 8.7
3. Parkland Dedication or “In Lieu” Fees 8.8
a. Exemptions From Parkland Provisions 8.9
b. Credit for Private Open Space 8.10
c. Adequacy of Water Supply 8.10A
4. School Fees and Site Dedication
a. School Facilities Act 8.11
(1) Requirements for Map Conditions 8.12
(2) Direct Nexus Required 8.13
b. Limitations Imposed by Other School Facilities Legislation 8.14
(1) State Law Provides Complete and Exclusive Mitigation for School Impacts, Preempts Local Regulation 8.15
(2) Limitation on Amount of Fees 8.16
(3) Limitations on Types of Facilities Subject to Fees 8.17
(4) Limitations on Use of Fees 8.18
c. Procedures for Adoption of Fees 8.19
d. Challenging School Fees 8.20
e. School Fees Are Not Special Taxes 8.21
5. Public Access 8.22
6. Reservations 8.23
7. Drainage and Sewer Facilities 8.24
8. Fees for Bridges and Major Thoroughfares 8.25
9. Transportation Facilities Fees 8.25A
10. Fees for Groundwater Recharge 8.26
11. Supplemental Improvements; Reimbursement Agreements 8.27
12. Soils Investigations and Reports 8.28
13. Setting of Monuments 8.29
B. Other Map Act Provisions
1. Grading and Erosion Control Requirements 8.30
2. Public Improvements 8.31
3. Off-Site Improvements 8.32
4. Energy Conservation 8.33
5. Indemnification 8.34
6. Reconveyance of Certain Land Dedications 8.34A
C. Limits on Local Standards for Public Improvements 8.35
D. Engineering or Land Surveying Conditions 8.36
IV. CONDITIONS IMPOSED UNDER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS 8.37
V. CONDITIONS IMPOSED UNDER LOCAL POWER TO REGULATE DESIGN AND IMPROVEMENT 8.38
A. Definition of Design 8.39
B. Definition of Improvement 8.40
C. Scope of Design and Improvement 8.41
VI. CONDITIONS IMPOSED TO IMPLEMENT GENERAL OR SPECIFIC PLANS 8.42
VII. IMPOSITION OF TAXES ON DEVELOPMENT 8.43
VIII. ISSUES CONCERNING IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS
A. Map Filing Freeze; “One-Bite-of-the-Apple” Rule 8.44
B. Procedures for Adopting, Increasing, and Imposing Development Fees 8.45
Map Approvals and Denials
I. TENTATIVE MAP APPROVALS 9.1
A. Attorney’s Role 9.2
1. Drafting or Reviewing Proposed Findings 9.3
2. Ensuring Adequate Evidence in Record 9.4
3. Creating Transcript of Hearing 9.5
1. Notice 9.6
2. Adjudicatory Nature of Hearing; Due Process 9.7
3. Entity Conducting Hearing 9.8
4. Law Applicable to Map Review
a. General Rule 9.9
b. Exceptions 9.10
(1) Changes “in the Pipeline” 9.11
(2) Changes Requested by Subdivider 9.12
(3) Annexation Before Final Map Approval 9.13
c. Vesting Tentative Maps 9.14
d. Initiatives 9.15
5. Agency Must Base Its Decision on Adequate Findings 9.16
a. Underlying Public Policy 9.17
b. What Constitutes Administrative Finding 9.18
c. Sufficiency and Support of Findings 9.19
C. Required Findings for Tentative Map Approval
1. General Plan Consistency 9.20
2. Housing Balance 9.21
3. Solar Capabilities 9.22
4. Mobilehome Park and Floating Home Marina Conversions 9.23
5. Telephone, Internet, and Cable Television Service 9.24
6. Absence of Factors That Would Require Disapproval Under Govt C §66474 9.24A
D. Findings Requiring Tentative Map Disapproval
1. General Plan Inconsistency 9.25
2. Physical Suitability 9.26
3. Density 9.27
4. Environmental Effect 9.28
5. Public Health 9.29
6. Conflict With Public Easements 9.30
7. Agricultural Preserves and Conservation Easements 9.31
8. Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Flood Protection 9.31A
9. Water Quality 9.32
10. Subdivider’s Failure to Comply With Map Act or Local Ordinances 9.33
11. Charter Amendments 9.34
E. Administrative Appeals
a. Reviewing Body 9.35
b. Standing 9.36
c. Time for Filing Appeal After Advisory Agency Decision 9.37
d. Time for Hearing 9.38
e. Appeals From Decision of Appeal Board 9.39
f. Reviewing Body’s Failure to Act 9.40
g. Notice Requirements for Exhaustion Doctrine to Apply 9.41
h. Effect of Procedural Errors 9.42
i. Hearing Is De Novo 9.43
2. Chart: Processing Appeal From Advisory Agency Decision 9.44
II. FINAL MAP APPROVALS
A. Final Map in Substantial Compliance With Tentative Map Must Be Approved 9.45
B. Grounds for Disapproving Final Map 9.46
C. Delegation of Approval Authority 9.47
D. Final Map Approval Does Not Ensure Other Development Approvals 9.48
E. Effect of Intervening Changes in Law 9.49
F. Approval Certificate; Acceptance of Offers of Dedication 9.50
G. Residential Real Property Conversions
1. Findings Required 9.51
2. Form: 60-Day Notice of Intent to Convert Before Filing Tentative Map (Govt C §66452.18) 9.51A
3. Form: 180-Day Notice of Intent to Convert Before Termination of Tenancy (Govt C §66452.19) 9.51B
4. Form: Notice of Exclusive Right to Purchase (Govt C §66452.20) 9.51C
5. Notices to Tenants 9.52
6. General and Specific Plan Consistency; Vote of Owners and Beneficiaries 9.53
III. PARCEL MAP APPROVALS 9.54
A. Approval by Designated Official 9.55
B. Recordation 9.56
C. Performance of Construction Obligations 9.57
IV. MAP APPROVAL NOT SUBJECT TO REFERENDUM 9.58
Map Standards and Requirements
I. ATTORNEY’S REVIEW OF MAP 10.1
II. TENTATIVE MAPS 10.2
III. FINAL MAPS 10.3
A. Final Map Certificates 10.4
1. Statement of Consent to Final Map 10.5
2. Statement of Dedications 10.6
3. Clerk’s Certificate 10.7
4. Engineering Statements for Final Map
a. Surveyor’s or Engineer’s Statement 10.8
b. City Engineer or City or County Surveyor Statement 10.9
c. Form: Statement of City Engineer, City Surveyor, or County Surveyor—Final Map 10.10
B. Local Ordinance Requirements 10.11
C. Common Interest Subdivisions; Combined Final Map and Condominium Plan
1. Final Map Requirements 10.12
2. Form: Notice to Tenants 10.13
IV. PARCEL MAPS
A. Parcel Map Standards and Requirements 10.14
B. Parcel Map Statements
1. Statement of Consent to Parcel Map 10.15
2. Dedications on Parcel Map 10.16
3. Engineering Statements for Parcel Map
a. Engineer’s or Surveyor’s Statement 10.17
b. Form: Engineer’s or Surveyor’s Statement—Parcel Map 10.18
c. City Engineer or City or County Surveyor Statement 10.19
d. Form: City Engineer’s, City Surveyor’s, or County Surveyor’s Statement—Parcel Map 10.20
4. Form: Recorder’s Certificate or Statement 10.21
A. Irrevocable Nature of Dedication 10.22
B. Local Agency Action on Dedication; Effect of Rejection on Offer 10.23
C. Abandonment of Dedication on Resubdivision or Reversion to Acreage 10.24
D. Record Certification That Dedication Must Be Reconveyed If Public Use Changes 10.25
VI. IMPROVEMENT SECURITY
A. Need for Improvement Agreements 10.26
1. Types of Improvement Agreements 10.27
2. Agency Need Not Enter Into Improvement Agreement 10.28
3. Special Rule for Certain Off-Site Improvements 10.29
B. Obligations Secured 10.30
C. Form of Security 10.31
D. Amount of Security 10.32
E. Rights Afforded by Security 10.33
F. Release of Security 10.34
G. Remedies 10.35
H. Forms of Bonds
1. Form: Faithful Performance Bond 10.36
2. Form: Labor and Material Bond 10.37
VII. MONUMENTS 10.38
VIII. FILING REQUIREMENTS FOR FINAL AND PARCEL MAPS
A. Tax Lien Certificates 10.39
B. Payment or Bonding of Taxes 10.40
C. Evidence of Title; Subdivision Guaranty 10.41
D. Recorder’s Review of Map 10.42
E. Effect of Recording Map 10.43
IX. CORRECTION AND AMENDMENT OF MAP
1. Errors and Omissions 10.44
2. Changed Circumstances 10.45
B. Amendment Procedure 10.46
C. Changes Affecting Property Rights 10.47
I. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES 11.1
II. PURCHASERS’ REMEDIES
A. Action to Void Deed, Sale, or Contract 11.2
B. Action for Damages 11.3
C. Liability of Title Insurer 11.4
D. Form: Title Insurance Endorsement Against Map Act Violations 11.5
E. Injunctive Relief 11.6
III. DISCLOSURES FOR REAL PROPERTY PURCHASE AND SALE CONTRACTS
A. When Required 11.7
B. Required Disclosures; Penalties for Failure to Disclose 11.8
C. Buyer’s Remedies for Nondisclosure 11.9
IV. LOCAL AGENCY’S REMEDIES
A. Injunctive and Declaratory Relief 11.10
B. Criminal Penalties 11.11
C. Notice of Violation 11.12
D. Denial of Development Permits and Approvals 11.13
V. THIRD PARTY’S REMEDIES 11.14
VI. DEFENSE TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION 11.15
A. In General 11.16
1. Owner Files Request 11.17
2. Agency Determines Compliance 11.18
3. Owner Entitled to Certificate 11.19
4. Required Contents of Certificate 11.20
5. Agency May Condition Certificate 11.21
VIII. CERTIFICATES OF EXCEPTION (LOS ANGELES COUNTY) 11.22
I. REVERSION TO ACREAGE
A. Formal Reversion
1. Nature and Purpose 12.1
a. Initiation; Fees; Public Hearing 12.2
b. Findings; Conditions 12.3
c. Recording Final Map; Release of Fees 12.4
3. Refund of Unused Subdivision Fees 12.5
B. Alternative Procedures
1. Parcel Map for Reversion to Acreage 12.6
2. Merger and Resubdivision 12.7
3. Merger of Contiguous Parcels Under Common Ownership 12.8
4. Lot Line Adjustment 12.9
II. EXCLUSION FROM SUBDIVISION 12.10
A. Initiating Procedure 12.11
B. Notice of Petition; Hearing 12.12
C. Court Decree Recorded 12.13
I. CHALLENGES TO SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OR DENIAL
A. Statutory Cause of Action 13.1
1. Claims for Money 13.2
2. Tentative Map May Be Stayed 13.3
B. Mandamus Proceedings 13.4
1. Commencement of Action 13.5
2. Record of Proceedings; Issuance of Writ 13.6
3. Ascertaining Whether Administrative or Traditional Mandamus Applies 13.7
C. Protesting Imposition of Subdivision Exaction; Mitigation Fee Act 13.8
1. Tender and Notice Required 13.9
2. Effect on Map Processing 13.10
3. Time for Filing Protest 13.11
4. Filing Legal Action 13.12
A. 90-Day Period for Mandamus Action 13.13
1. Commencement of 90-Day Period 13.14
2. Laches 13.15
B. 180-Day Period for Exaction Challenge 13.16
C. Chart: Statutes Applicable to Common Land Use Decisions 13.17
A. Administrative Mandamus Action 13.18
1. Independent Judgment Versus Substantial Evidence Tests 13.19
2. Findings Requirements 13.20
B. Traditional Mandamus Action 13.21
IV. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 13.22
A. Administrative Appeals 13.23
B. Waiver of Exhaustion Requirement 13.24
C. Challenger Must Follow Each Procedural Step 13.25
V. ATTORNEY FEES 13.26
This update is the result of a thorough review of all included references, relevant California cases, statutes, and administrative regulations decided, enacted, and repealed since the previous update. Among the developments of particular note are the following:
In City of Morgan Hill v Bushey (2019) 5 C5th 1068, the court held that the local electorate may “challenge by referendum a zoning ordinance amendment that changes a property’s zoning designation to comply with a general plan amendment, at least where other consistent zoning options are available, or the local municipality has the power to make the zoning ordinance and general plan consistent through other means.” See §4.23.
Effective January 1, 2019, Govt C §65915 was amended so that at the time an application for a density bonus is deemed complete, a city must provide the applicant a determination as to (1) the amount of the density bonus for which the applicant is eligible; (2) the parking ratio for which the applicant is eligible, if so requested; and (3) whether the applicant has provided sufficient information for the city to make a determination regarding any incentives, concessions, or waivers or reductions of development standards requested by the applicant. See §4.29.
The legislature, once again, has extended the life of tentative maps. The 2019 map extension provides that the life of a tentative map may, in the local agency’s discretion, be extended by up to 24 months if the map (1) was approved on or after January 1, 2006, and not later than July 11, 2013; (2) relates to construction of single-or multi-family housing; (3) had its expiration date extended under the 2015 statutory extension (Govt C §66452.25), meaning this extension applies only in the same counties where the 2015 extension applied; and (4) had not expired on or before the effective date of the extension, January 1, 2019. Govt C §66452.26. See §§5.28, 7.6.
In an effort to ensure that charter cities are required to comply with increasingly stringent policies promoting housing development, the legislature in 2018 amended the Government Code to require that charter cities comply with several state law land use requirements, including that general plans be internally consistent, specific plans be consistent with the general plan, and zoning be consistent with the general plan. Govt C §65700(b). See §6.1.
Government Code §25213 was amended to authorize a county service area to acquire, construct, improve, maintain, and operate broadband Internet access services. See §6A.16.
Government Code §53313.5 was amended to authorize a Mello-Roos district to finance the acquisition, installation, and improvement of energy efficiency, water conservation, wildfire safety improvements and renewable energy improvements that are affixed to or on real property and in buildings, subject to certain limitations. See §6A.57.
In Prout v Department of Transp. (2018) 31 CA5th 200, 214, the court held that Caltrans had impliedly accepted an offer of dedication when it proceeded to install highway improvements on the dedicated property, despite there having been no deed conveying the dedicated property to Caltrans. Evidence supporting the court’s conclusion included that the landowner had never exerted any ownership over the property through payment of taxes or fencing of the property and had taken no steps to revoke his offer, disavow the dedication, or demand compensation until after Caltrans had impliedly accepted the dedication through its installation of improvements on the property. See §10.23.
DANIEL J. CURTIN, JR. Until his death on November 30, 2006 (see “In Memoriam” section), Mr. Curtin was senior counsel in the Walnut Creek office of Bingham McCutchen. Mr. Curtin served as Chair-elect and was on the Council of the State and Local Government Law Section of the American Bar Association. He was past Chair of the Land Development, Planning & Zoning Section of the International Municipal Lawyers Association (formerly NIMLO). He was past Vice-Chair of the Executive Committee of the Real Property Law Section of the State Bar of California. He had also served as President of the City Attorneys’ Department of the League of California Cities, as a member of the Board of Directors of the League, and as Regional Vice President of the International Municipal Lawyers Association. In recognition of his extensive contributions to NIMLO and to the entire municipal law community, as well as his years of leadership and service to the legal profession, Mr. Curtin was honored in 1992 with that association’s Charles S. Rhyne Award for Lifetime Achievement in Municipal Law. In 1988, he was awarded the American Planning Association’s Distinguished Leadership award for 20 years of writing, teaching, encouraging, and supporting planning ideas. Mr. Curtin wrote numerous publications on California land use and subdivision law, including the first edition of this book, which have frequently been cited by the California courts. He was a frequent lecturer for the University of California Extension and Continuing Education of the Bar (CEB) and other professional organizations on all aspects of land use law, and served as an adjunct professor for the University of San Francisco Law School teaching land use law. Mr. Curtin graduated from the University of San Francisco in 1954 and from its School of Law in 1957.
ROBERT E. MERRITT was formerly a partner in the Walnut Creek office of Bingham McCutchen. He received his J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law in 1966, and is considered to be one of the state’s leading authorities on the Subdivision Map Act. For detailed biographical information about Mr. Merritt, see the “In Memoriam” section.
CURTIS C. SPROUL is a partner in the law firm of Sproul Trost LLP, located in Roseville. Mr. Sproul wrote Chapter 6A on Use of Local Government Districts to Provide Services and Facilities. Mr. Sproul specializes in representing homeowners’ associations, common interest developers, and nonprofit organizations of all kinds. He earned his B.A. degree in 1970 and his J.D. degree in 1973 from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. He is the coauthor of CEB’s Advising California Nonprofit Corporations and Advising California Common Interest Communities. He has also published numerous articles and spoken frequently on the subject of nonprofit corporations and common interest developments.
MATTHEW S. GRAY is a partner in the San Francisco office of Perkins Coie LLP. Mr. Gray has served as lead update author of this title annually since 2005. He received his J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center in 1997. Mr. Gray represents local agencies, real estate developers, and landowners in all stages of the land use entitlement and development process. He assists clients in negotiating and securing approval of development agreements, general plan amendments, specific plans, zoning, subdivision maps, and annexation of property into cities and special districts; regularly appears before planning commissions and city councils; and advises clients on compliance with the Subdivision Map Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, and other federal and state regulatory programs implicated by the development process. Mr. Gray also has experience negotiating affordable housing agreements, complex mitigation fee agreements, and conservation easements; forming land-based financing mechanisms, including Mello-Roos Districts; and using the initiative and referendum process in the land use planning context. Mr. Gray is a frequent speaker at CEB programs and other legal education panels on the Subdivision Map Act and land use entitlement and development issues.