Property

[Fritz]

For building code purposes, do you believe that 2 separately owned parcels of land can be considered the "property" for building code purposes? In other words, there is an ownership line between the 2 parcels, yet both parcels need to be considered as one property for the project. The building may or may not cross the ownership line.

Would a unity document change your opinion.

Fritz

 

[mark handler]

Are you saying there is, or is not, a legal "lot tie"?

See PDF, copy and paste

http://netinfo.ladbs.org/ladbsec.NSF/0/054cc81296028905882569a40069a16b/$FILE/S-Aff22-0503.pdf

 

[mark handler]

http://netinfo.ladbs.org/ladbsec.NSF/0/054cc81296028905882569a40069a16b/$FILE/S-Aff22-0503.pdf

 

[mtlogcabin]

We have the owner "bind" the lots together and record the document. It treats the 2 parcels as one for building and zoning purposes without requiring ammended plats. The document also requires approval from the city if the present or future owner ever wants to sell one parcel and not the other. Cost to the owner is about $15.00 recording fees.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Scratch what I wrote; thought it was residential.

 

[pwood]

lot line adjustment required,make it go away legally.it is expensive but so is a new building and the legal ramifications.

 

[texasbo]

Fritz; is your question regarding yards, allowable area, and/or rated exterior walls? I have recognized unity agreements and/or separation easements platted on adjacent property in some unique circumstances, as mentioned by mtlogcabin. If adjacent owner is not willing to do that, then I completely agree with pwood's comment above. It would help to know what your specific circumstances are.

 

[Fritz]

It is actually a nursing home. Built in phases. Phase I is complete, and separated into a separate tax lot for financial reasons. The second phase is due in about 3 years. Separate financinig from the first phase. The problem is they want to build stand alone "temporary" garages across this line they created. With the overall project these garages will have to be sold and relocated before phase II can start. One owner for all the property, but 2 separate parcels. I have seen the covenent agreement before, but could not find one. Thanks for all the input.

Fritz

 

[jim baird]

Recombo of parcels usually takes a surveyor and recording as such.

 

[TJacobs]

What pwood said.

 

[Coug Dad]

This has been discussed on this and the old board many times. There are many cases around the country where a single "building" spans over a "property line". I worked on a building once that crossed over a state line. Some building officials refuse to look beyond "property line" and want the parcels combined. It is whatever your jurisdiction is willing to accept.

 

[texasbo]

It is actually a nursing home. Built in phases. Phase I is complete, and separated into a separate tax lot for financial reasons. The second phase is due in about 3 years. Separate financinig from the first phase. The problem is they want to build stand alone "temporary" garages across this line they created. With the overall project these garages will have to be sold and relocated before phase II can start. One owner for all the property, but 2 separate parcels. I have seen the covenent agreement before, but could not find one. Thanks for all the input.Fritz

In this case I would recognize a unity agreement committing to not separating the property as long as the garages cross the lot line.

 

[texasbo]

Some building officials refuse to look beyond "property line" and want the parcels combined. It is whatever your jurisdiction is willing to accept.

And with good reason. One of the most fundamental concepts of the code is the protection of buildings on adjacent properties, hence the whole "distance from property line" thing, with the attendant wall ratings and opening protection...

What happens when the adjoining property sells, and there's no protection at the property line?

 

[Alias]

On new construction:

Planning - lot merge and possible variance required. Total fees for both $135.

No building permit issued without the merge being recorded.

Sue

 

[Yikes]

Fritz - please check out Mark Handler's link above. This is how the City of LA handles such things, and the form could be easily modified for your own jurisdiction.

I had a situation like this with a 2 phase office building development. The covenant and everything was fine, until the new financial investor on Phase Two insisted on separate utilities. Their idea was, if the Phase One investors went belly-up, the Phase Two investment could continue to operate unaffected by the problems of Phase One. Of course, this went counter to the rationale for the "covenant to hold as one parcel", and caused all kinds of problems.

Moral of the story: if you are working for the developer, make sure everyone is on board with the concept - the investors as well as the city.