- Jurisdiction
- California
My husband and I own a property that has 2 additional parcels that are recorded (it is publicly recorded as well) on our title as parcel 2 and parcel 3, for the purpose of right away / ingress and egress. Back in 1980, an easement had been agreed upon and granted between my husband's grandparents (they were the owners at the time) and the people who purchased land that wrapped around our property along the north and west property lines which would have landlocked the property. However, the county parcel map was never updated to show the 30ft easement from parcel 1's west property line (being parcel 2) and from parcel 1's north property line (being parcel 3).
Last year, we got into a battle with the county when we wanted to install a ground mount solar unit, because we have a small building that is within 20' rear setback, on the west property line of parcel 1. When the permit application was submitted, they wanted us to demolish or relocate the building. This building was also built back in the early 1950's and is in use as my home office and art studio. It has never been added on too and the only modifications are standard maintenance with exception to electrical being run to it in 1986 (that was permitted through the county). The county eventually issued the permit, after 7 months of back and forth, when we provided our title showing the additionally allocated parcels as sufficient evidence that the allocated space was not in conflict with the setback requirements by property line and also because the solar was not directly related to the building in question. We now have our solar system up and running which we are thankful for, but they stated we would have to submit a variance easement request to get it documented on the county map before they would allow any other permitted work. They claim the variance easement was never completed. Well guess what? We were just informed that our septic system is going to need to be replaced in the coming year because it's failing (it's 70 years old, so that was not a shocker).
I wanted to get the ball rolling on the variance and have investigated what's required, let me just say, it's extremely costly. It'll be at least $10k and there is no guarantee after you've spent the time, effort, and money into doing this, that they will grant it. I'd rather tear the building down and use that money to add on to our home, as our main building is very small and is the reason we use the little building question. However, I want what is clearly defined on our title shown on the counties parcel map. I feel they somehow dropped the ball when the land around the north and west property lines were sold and that the easement had to have been negotiated and approved by the county. Cause how else could the title have been updated to reflect the additional 30ft? They couldn't have acquired that property without the easement being in place and approved because of the landlock it would have created.
So, to sum up my questions:
Sorry for the wordiness, but I wanted to delve out as much information as possible. This has become a real headache and it seems ludicrous that we are being put through it. The main takeaway is, I want to keep this structure and be able to have permitted work done on the property so we can take care of our home.
Any help or suggestions would be massively appreciated. Thank you!
Nevada County, CA
Last year, we got into a battle with the county when we wanted to install a ground mount solar unit, because we have a small building that is within 20' rear setback, on the west property line of parcel 1. When the permit application was submitted, they wanted us to demolish or relocate the building. This building was also built back in the early 1950's and is in use as my home office and art studio. It has never been added on too and the only modifications are standard maintenance with exception to electrical being run to it in 1986 (that was permitted through the county). The county eventually issued the permit, after 7 months of back and forth, when we provided our title showing the additionally allocated parcels as sufficient evidence that the allocated space was not in conflict with the setback requirements by property line and also because the solar was not directly related to the building in question. We now have our solar system up and running which we are thankful for, but they stated we would have to submit a variance easement request to get it documented on the county map before they would allow any other permitted work. They claim the variance easement was never completed. Well guess what? We were just informed that our septic system is going to need to be replaced in the coming year because it's failing (it's 70 years old, so that was not a shocker).
I wanted to get the ball rolling on the variance and have investigated what's required, let me just say, it's extremely costly. It'll be at least $10k and there is no guarantee after you've spent the time, effort, and money into doing this, that they will grant it. I'd rather tear the building down and use that money to add on to our home, as our main building is very small and is the reason we use the little building question. However, I want what is clearly defined on our title shown on the counties parcel map. I feel they somehow dropped the ball when the land around the north and west property lines were sold and that the easement had to have been negotiated and approved by the county. Cause how else could the title have been updated to reflect the additional 30ft? They couldn't have acquired that property without the easement being in place and approved because of the landlock it would have created.
So, to sum up my questions:
- Is the documented title easement, being for right of way / ingress and egress, ok to consider a non-violation of the rear setback rule?
- Is it legal for them to force the burden of correcting the undocumented easement on their assessor's parcel map simply because they failed to do it when they sold the land around ours?
- We do not have the easement documents, only our title. We have the original title / bill of sale from 1948 which clearly states just the original parcel. We also have the updated title from 1980 which clearly shows the adjustment for the additional 30ft on the north and west property lines. All parties involved are deceased except for one which is the lady who owns the other property, and she acted like she knew nothing about this. Isn't our publicly recorded title enough evidence that the easement took place and was approved for the county to move forward with updating their drawings?
- Before the sale of the property, the APM showed our north and west property lines as "open boundary" with the little zig-zag (kind of like a heartbeat symbol) which indicated they were not hard set north and west property line due to the surrounding are being open.
- The building was built in the early 50's. I have state cataloged aerial photographic evidence that the structure existed prior to 1961. Our counties code has a very interesting line:
Sec. L-V 2.2 Section 114: Violations (add the following)
A. Maintenance of any building, structure or building service equipment, which was unlawful at the time it was constructed or installed, if constructed or installed after January 1, 1962, shall constitute a continuing violation of this Code and the technical codes.
I feel like this is the "grandfathered" clause, in which the building cannot constitute a violation since it was built prior to 01/01/1962. No one at the county office could explain the meaning of this code to me.
Sorry for the wordiness, but I wanted to delve out as much information as possible. This has become a real headache and it seems ludicrous that we are being put through it. The main takeaway is, I want to keep this structure and be able to have permitted work done on the property so we can take care of our home.
Any help or suggestions would be massively appreciated. Thank you!
Nevada County, CA