Community Forums

Share:

Boundary Line Agreement / Planning  

Page 2 / 3

Peter Ehlert
Posts: 2832
Member
(@peter-ehlert)
2,500+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

depends

1. If the BLA is being used to clear up an ambiguity in the record, NO. That is not something any local agency should be involved in. It is None Of Their Business.
2. If the BLA is being used to move lines, then perhaps it is a good idea if there is a potential that one of the resulting parcels may not conform to codes making it difficult to develop.

Note: Lenders/Mortgage holders need to be consulted (or their influence must be considered at a minimum)! They actually hold a "higher interest" in the lands than the "owners"

 

 

 

Reply
5 Replies
thebionicman
Member
(@thebionicman)
Joined: 6 years ago

2,500+ posts
Posts: 3184

@peter-ehlert

Number two should read "If the BLA is being ABused...".

Reply
Peter Ehlert
Member
(@peter-ehlert)
Joined: 9 years ago

2,500+ posts
Posts: 2832

@thebionicman

that would depend on your location. BLAs are the most common and the preferred method here.

 

 

 

Reply
thebionicman
Member
(@thebionicman)
Joined: 6 years ago

2,500+ posts
Posts: 3184

@peter-ehlert

In the context of this thread BLA is boundary line agreement. That process is well defined by case law in most jurisdictions and by statute in others. It is improper in any jurisdiction to use a boundary line agreement to transfer property. Where the laws and ordinances on the two get mixed up we should be 'unmixing' them..

Reply
Peter Ehlert
Member
(@peter-ehlert)
Joined: 9 years ago

2,500+ posts
Posts: 2832

@thebionicman

yes, BLA = Boundary Line Agreement
Not to disagree, but I am working on a ranch, a large one.
Original ranch was divided in two parts by Deeds. The owners had me do a bit of rough location work (for water reservoirs) and it was found that the Deeds did not follow the lines on the ground as either understood them to be when they divided the land. (Nobody is stepping forward and "remembering" who created the descriptions, but that is off point.)
So, I suggested a simple BLA, but as I am 99% retired that is being done by another surveyor. (I have no interest in more than the recon and planning phase, the rest is just Labor in my mind.)
In this case we don't need a Civil Servant involved, and there is no statute to prohibit transferring the land without Local Agency permission.

 

 

 

Reply
thebionicman
Member
(@thebionicman)
Joined: 6 years ago

2,500+ posts
Posts: 3184

@peter-ehlert

What you are describing would be called a boundary line adjustment in the jurisdictions I am familiar with. If the property transfer does not meet the requirements triggering P&Z or other approval there is no need for application and review. In that sense we don't disagree.

The separation I was talking about is simple. If an ambiguity exists then an agreement is the proper remedy. If owners want to move lines then it's an adjustment. This discussion is a perfect example of why the two processes should be defined and kept separate. Owners should not be charged review fees for resolving ambiguities, and others should not abuse the process to avoid review of boundary adjustments.

Reply
dmyhill
Posts: 1259
Member
(@dmyhill)
1,000+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

It would help to know the jurisdiction of the OP, but in WA, a BLA is different from a BLA.

Boundary Line Adjustment = Review
Boundary Line Agreement = No review (but many (most or all?) counties will not allow them)

In theory, two land owners could quit claim to the other the adjoining lot and I could just show it on a Record of Survey. (Not advisable, and that is basically what a BLAgreement is).

The issue isn't really about clearing up ownership issues (encroachments, which is what a Boundary Line Adjustment is for) or defining a unknown boundary (Agreement). The key issue is having a legal lot that you can build on at the end. You will find that hard to obtain in many jurisdictions without review.

Reply
Dave Karoly
Posts: 10412
Member
(@dave-karoly)
10,000+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

Ambiguity is not required to have a valid boundary location agreement, only uncertainty which means the property owners don't know where the boundary is located, if they don't know then they aren't moving it, only agreeing as to where it is located.

There are a lot of moving parts but to simplify I would say if the uncertainty is objective (for example, property corners are marked by an old survey) then do a Boundary Location Agreement and leave the agency out of it.  If the uncertainty is subjective (usually a fence of unknown origin) and the neighbors are agreeable then do a Boundary Line Adjustment (if it can meet zoning and get approved) even though technically it may not be required.  However, there are numerous exceptions and left turns to the above.

Probably in a lot of cases if a boundary line adjustment can be pushed through and the owners are agreeable then that would be the best way to cement it into place in all the different points of authority (owners, title companies, lenders, local agency).

Reply
7 Replies
Norman Oklahoma
Member
(@norman-oklahoma)
Joined: 4 years ago

2,500+ posts
Posts: 4542

"Ambiguity is not required to have a valid boundary location agreement..."

It is not necessary that the boundary be unknowable- only that the parties do not know it.  

 

Reply
Brian Allen
Member
(@brian-allen)
Joined: 9 years ago

1,000+ posts
Posts: 1572

"It is not necessary that the boundary be unknowable- only that the parties do not know it. "

There have been a bunch of generalizations stated in this thread, but, as we all know (at least should know), boundary by agreement, acquiescence, etc., varies from state to state, therefore it is imperative that we thoroughly know the law in the states we practice in. But, I do know that in the states I practice in (and others I am familiar with), a boundary agreement is NOT a transfer of land nor a "moving" of the boundary.

Reply
James Vianna
Member
(@james-vianna)
Joined: 9 years ago

250+ posts
Posts: 377

Mark today down, I agree 100% with Brian.
Here in NY most planning/zoning boards don't even have jurisdiction over LLA. Most of their enabling law speaks only to subdivision and the creation of a new lots. If the boundary is unknown its a BLA (exchange quit claim deeds) if the boundary is known its a LLA (exchange warranty deeds)
Jim

Reply
Norman Oklahoma
Member
(@norman-oklahoma)
Joined: 4 years ago

2,500+ posts
Posts: 4542

"... we all know (at least should know), boundary by agreement, acquiescence, etc., varies from state to state..."

I did think of that as I wrote my comment. And on principle I agree. Nevertheless, I believe that the comment was generalized enough to apply across the board.   

Reply
thebionicman
Member
(@thebionicman)
Joined: 6 years ago

2,500+ posts
Posts: 3184

@dave-karoly

Ambiguity and uncertainty hold the same legal meaning. The terms are used as definitions of each other in most dictionaries. 

Reply
Dave Karoly
Member
(@dave-karoly)
Joined: 9 years ago

10,000+ posts
Posts: 10412

@thebionicman

My comment may have been ambiguous.

An ambiguity in the Deed description is not required for a valid Boundary Location Agreement. In the context of boundary location "uncertainty" means the property owners don't know where the boundary is located.

Reply
thebionicman
Member
(@thebionicman)
Joined: 6 years ago

2,500+ posts
Posts: 3184

@dave-karoly

I think we are on the same team. 😎

Reply
Jim in AZ
Posts: 260
Member
(@jamesf1)
250+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

I think so... if you assist n creating a non-conforming parcel you could be held responsible for damages. It should definitely be reviewed by the Mortgage Co.

Reply
Jim in AZ
Posts: 260
Member
(@jamesf1)
250+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

think so... if you assist in creating a non-conforming parcel you could be held responsible for damages. It should definitely be reviewed by the Mortgage Co.

Reply
Page 2 / 3
Default
:)
:d
:wink:
:mrgreen:
:neutral:
:twisted:
:arrow:
:shock:
:???:
:cool:
:evil:
:oops:
:razz:
:roll:
:cry:
:eek:
:lol:
:mad:
:sad:
:!:
:?:
:idea:
:hmm:
:beg:
:whew:
:chuckle:
:silly:
:envy:
:shutmouth: