Single building spanning multiple lots

[ADAguy]

Have a property, siingle owner, made up of 8 contiguous lots, built a house on it in 1946. House was allowed to be built over multiple lot lines; Ok to do so or should the lots have been tied together?

 

[cda]

In 1946,,,

No problem

 

[ADAguy]

Today; want to adjust the lot lines for development purposes, still no problem? Zoning allows for SF.
Can legal description and adjustment of lot lines be changed while the existing residence is still in place or must it be removed first?

 

[Paul Sweet]

At one time it was common for suburban lots to be 25 ft. or so wide, and you would buy 2 or more lots. The deed would say which lots were purchased together. Sometimes people would buy a few extra lots so they could sell them off in the future.

I don't see any problem with subdividing as long as setbacks and other zoning requirements are met.

 

[VillageInspector]

This is really a local zoning question rather than a building code question.

 

[DMartin]

Here we have had homes built over the lines. We cant or don't make them tear the home down. If he owns them all then there should be no problem if he ever wants to sell them there may be issues. One home here the courts made the person pay rent for the use of the neighbors land but did not force them to remove the piece crossing the line.

 

[classicT]

Have them perform a parcel consolidation. Becomes one legal parcel, however an additional survey is not required. Will also simplify the owners taxes, as he will only receive one bill.

The building codes are somewhat mute on buildings extending over property lines (address right up to, but not across). This tends to be a zoning and taxing issue. For example, to which property is the improvement (the building) associated with for property valuation and determination of taxes owed?

 

[ADAguy]

This is really a local zoning question rather than a building code question.

Exactly, Planning seems to believe that they cannot approve the lot line realignments until the existing building is removed. To further complicate matters the CA Coastal Commission (which didn't exist in 47') has co-jurisdiction over the site and won't approve the development until there is clear definition as to lot descriptions. The no-brainer would seem to be bonding around and requiring the demolition of the existing building when the realigned lots are developed and attaching the requirement to the property title.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Have them perform a parcel consolidation. Becomes one legal parcel, however an additional survey is not required. Will also simplify the owners taxes, as he will only receive one bill.

This is exactly what our zoning department does. We refer to it as binding the lots together as it gets recorded in the courthouse and cannot be divided up and sold unless the city agrees and that would only happen if the structures have been removed

Planning seems to believe that they cannot approve the lot line realignments until the existing building is removed.

Does not make sense then again common sense is not common when it comes to government.
If you remove the building then there is no reason to bind the lots together and they all become non-conforming lots

 

[ADAguy]

mt, you get it, in this case they did not tie the lots together, the zoning administrator gave an administrative approval to construct the house over the lot lines in 47'. The tax accessor issues a single bill rather than 8 seperate as the property is under one ownership. The property owner now wants to sell the property as 8 buildable lots with approved plans with some minor lot line adjustments. In the 11th hour a present planner seems to believe that the building should be removed prior to approving the light line adjustment but didn't consider use of a bond or deed restriction to complete the process, "duh".