• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no echo chambers. Create your FREE Cyburbia ID, and join us today! You can also register through your Reddit, Facebook, Google, Twitter, or Microsoft account.

Subdivision Vacant contiguous nonconforming lots

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
19,709
Points
46
Vacant Continuous Nonconforming Lots

Here is a case that was discussed before, but here is a slight twist.

Two vacant, nonconforming lots. Both are independent lots of record and have been independent since before the city was incorporated or the zoning code was adopted. Both are continuous, and both owned by the same person, and were bought at different points in time. The property owners live on the other side of the street, and do not own any other lots around them. Both have sewer leads. They are nonconforming in area and width. The are taxed as separate lots. They were not required to be combined into a single lot, and for all purposes, are two legally separate lots.

If they were not continuous, there would be no question that they are buildable. The property owners want to sell them as separate buildable lots.

Together, they are would be a conforming lot, and have some left over.

What would you do?
 

luckless pedestrian

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
11,817
Points
44
this is what we have in our ordinance now, it could be written more clearly, but you can get the gist (basically, it's a rule whereby the lots automatically are combined):

A. Two or more nonconforming vacant parcels of land in common ownership shall be consolidated to form one or more lots conforming so far as possible to the lot standards of the district in which the parcels are located. If possible, the lots shall be consolidated so that no nonconforming lot or lots are formed.

B. One or more vacant parcels of land that adjoin a nonconforming lot in common ownership and containing a building or structure shall be consolidated with said improved lot to the extent necessary to bring the improved lot into conformity so far as possible. If the remaining portion of the vacant parcels constitutes a conforming lot, said remaining portion shall constitute a separate lot. Otherwise, the combined lots shall constitute one lot.
 

mendelman

Unfrozen Caveman Planner
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
13,169
Points
47
I would say that, despite common ownership, if your code allows pre-existing, non-conforming lots to be buildable, then they should be allowed to do so.

I think that the ownership is probably irrelevant in this case, although I don't know the intricacies of your zoning code.
 
Last edited:

Gedunker

Moderating
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
11,196
Points
36
If they were platted and of record prior to the zoning code that established minimum lot area requirements, your code should speak to it in terms of permitted uses. (I'm presuming it's a single-family district, so single-family should be permitted on these lots.) Although the use may be permitted, there may be development standards variances required for dwelling width, side yards, et cetera.

My read: two distinct single-family dwelling lots transferable as such.
 

Richmond Jake

You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!
Messages
18,309
Points
44
IMHO, you're treading on thin ice if you require merger of the lots. Because they're legal parcels of record, they should be entitled to be sold and developed separately.

I worked in a California jurisdiction for years that had an involuntary lot combination ordinance and it was never used. The county lawyers would have soiled themselves if planning staff had initiated a combination.
 

luckless pedestrian

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
11,817
Points
44
RichmondJake said:
IMHO, you're treading on thin ice if you require merger of the lots. Because they're legal parcels of record, they should be entitled to be sold and developed separately.

I worked in a California jurisdiction for years that had an involuntary lot combination ordinance and it was never used. The county lawyers would have soiled themselves if planning staff had initiated a combination.
wow, really - we do it all the time w/o being appealed
 

Lee Nellis

Cyburbian
Messages
1,371
Points
29
I agree with luckless pedestrian. They should be considered to be merged. How the paper looks down at the courhouse is irrelevant. On the other hand, Michigan has some interesting twists in its planning law, so you really need to talk local land use lawyer.
 

NHPlanner

A shadow of my former self
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
9,901
Points
38
luckless pedestrian's ordinance language is very similar to what I've experienced with zoning ordinances in NH. Contiguous non-conforming lots can be combined involuntarily by a municipality for zoning purposes as long as the lots are both owned by the same entity.
 

mendelman

Unfrozen Caveman Planner
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
13,169
Points
47
Lee Nellis said:
I agree with luckless pedestrian. They should be considered to be merged. How the paper looks down at the courhouse is irrelevant. On the other hand, Michigan has some interesting twists in its planning law, so you really need to talk local land use lawyer.
Well, before he goes to a LU lawyer, he should determine precisely what the Zoning Code says regarding this issue. Most codes address this very issue and seem to do it quite well.

If the Zoning code allows these types of lots to be buildable on their own, then it shouldn't matter that they are contiguous. They should be treated as separate vacant lots with the same owner.

Now if there was a building using these lots to gain compliance and the owner wanted to divide the zoning lot, then, yeah, they should be kept together.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
19,709
Points
46
See that is the thing... legally, they are two lots right now.

I can not see how we can legally prevent them from selling them separate from each other. When the code was adopted, any nonconforming lots that were continuous and owned by a single owner, became a single lot. So having these as separate lots shows that they were owned by different people.

I advised my supervisor that I don’t see how we can prevent them from selling them as two lots since for all legal and real purposes, they are two lots.
 

Richmond Jake

You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!
Messages
18,309
Points
44
If I owned two or more contiguous legal parcels of record that were made nonconforming due to the actions of government, that were buildable prior to government action and subsequently that government involuntarily combined them, I’d retain a mean junkyard dog lawyer, take off it’s collar and leash, and give the order: “sic ‘um.”
 
Messages
1,580
Points
21
I'm not sure about your specific zoning laws, but otherwise be ready for a lawsuit if you force the merger of two legal lots that were here before YOUR zoning codes. When they were created they were conforming (or, rather, there was nothing to conform TO), and that should be enough. This represents a large loss in potential income for the owner and they'd have a right to call the city on it I think.
 

luckless pedestrian

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
11,817
Points
44
RichmondJake said:
If I owned two or more contiguous legal parcels of record that were made nonconforming due to the actions of government, that were buildable prior to government action and subsequently that government involuntarily combined them, I’d retain a mean junkyard dog lawyer, take off it’s collar and leash, and give the order: “sic ‘um.”

welcome to new england - har de har...

and the things is, it's automatic - no vote, no nothing - just happens -

in my last town, alot of widow lots were lost and I had some "spailnin' to do

lol - but really, i know what you are saying -

remember, the premise of non-conforming protections is to seek conformity someday, grandfathering isn't necessarily forever, so the reverse of your argument may be why should you get to build more than I do when I , like a good doobie, lawfully create a lot of that new larger size?
 

Richmond Jake

You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!
Messages
18,309
Points
44
luckless pedestrian said:
...and the things is, it's automatic - no vote, no nothing - just happens - ...
And no due process? Me thinks that stinks.
 

luckless pedestrian

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
11,817
Points
44
RichmondJake said:
And no due process? Me thinks that stinks.
this is good stuff - forces me to think about this -

since it's written in the ordinance, that it's automatically done, then there is no process to be due
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
19,709
Points
46
Thanks for the advice. We decided that they are going to remain as separate buildable lots.
 

jordanb

Cyburbian
Messages
3,232
Points
25
People talk about "Due Process" here. I don't think this is a Due Process issue. Although I've not looked at it in-depth, from what I understand, the courts have narrowly defined Due Process as being cases where a well-established procedure is abridged for a particular individual.

For instance, the constitution does not say that you shall be charged before a judge, it just says you must be charged somehow within 3 days of being arrested. But established procedure is that it must be in a hearing before a judge, so if the police decide to violate that procedure and just charge you themselves, letting you know in a letter or something, that would be a violation of Due Process.

In this case I don't see how Due Process applies because this is not a circumstance where procedure has been set. There seems to be a notion here that it's not fair to automatically combine non-conforming lots, and maybe it's not really fair (it could go both ways, to be honest, as luckless pedestrian has demonstrated) but it's not a constitutional Due Process issue at all because it's not a case of established procedure being abridged.
 

pandersen

Cyburbian
Messages
243
Points
9
Here's another twist - regardless of what the zoning by-law says regarding non-conforming lots, you might want to talk with your Land titles Office for their spin on this issue.

In one jurisdiction I worked in, if you had contiguous parcels registered by the same person in the same manner, after a certain period of time, the Land titles Office deemed the parcels to be consolidated

e.g.
Parcel 1 - owned by J. Smith
Parcel 2 - ownd by J. Smith

After a given period of time, Land titles Would consoilidate on title both lots.

If a person wanted to prevent this consolidation from automatically taking place, he had to be sure to uniquelt register each lot.

e.g.
Parcel - owned by John C. Smith
Parcel 2- owned by J. Smith (or some or variation of the owner's name different from parcel 1.
 

Richmond Jake

You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!
Messages
18,309
Points
44
jordanb said:
...I don't think this is a Due Process issue....
[ot]I disagree.

Due Process of Law:
n. a fundamental principle of fairness in all legal matters, both civil and criminal, especially in the courts. All legal procedures set by statute and court practice, including notice of rights, must be followed for each individual so that no prejudicial or unequal treatment will result. While somewhat indefinite, the term can be gauged by its aim to safeguard both private and public rights against unfairness. The universal guarantee of due process is in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides "No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," and is applied to all states by the 14th Amendment. From this basic principle flows many legal decisions determining both procedural and substantive rights.
[/ot]
 

luckless pedestrian

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
11,817
Points
44
okay, gotta stay with this one:

richmond - but there is a process - it's in the ordinance that this happens -

remember too: it's the responsiblity of the landowner to know the laws pertaining to their property and to keep up with zoning changes

we make every effort to let everyone know when potential zoning changes are occurring and in new england, everybody gets to vote on zoning changes
 

SW MI Planner

Cyburbian
Messages
3,195
Points
26
NHPlanner said:
luckless pedestrian's ordinance language is very similar to what I've experienced with zoning ordinances in NH. Contiguous non-conforming lots can be combined involuntarily by a municipality for zoning purposes as long as the lots are both owned by the same entity.
Our ordinance is similar, but specifies three contingous lots, rather than just two. Ours also is automatic.
 

ssc

Cyburbian
Messages
209
Points
9
In our ordinance, the lots would be considered combined:

"No structure shall be erected on any non-conforming existing lot of record if hte owner of said lot owns any adjoining vacant land which would create a conforming, or less non-conforming lot, if said vacant land were combined with the lot deficient in area."

In my opinion, this is no more onerous than other limitations on preexisting non-conforming uses. In every community I have worked in, pre-existing non-conforming lots and uses are grandfathered but expansion over a certain amount or change to another non-conforming use/structure requires a variance. I suspect that the basis for the exceptions for existing lots of record in most ordinances is the recognition of hardship. What if the ordinance did not allow for development on existing lots of record? Owners would have to ask for variances, which would be granted due to demonstrated hardship. So the ordinances recognize this and formalize these - kind of like an automatic variance. However, once the property owner purchases two adjacent non-conforming lots the hardship would be difficult to prove because the owner now has the ability to bring the property into conformity and still have some economic gain.
 

cololi

Cyburbian
Messages
1,186
Points
22
Because the lots are vacant, don't they have to comply with the current ordinance standards, not ones in place years ago? The lots should be combined. How can you approve a building permit if the lot is not conforming? Do you wavethe lot size requirement, reduce setbacks? That to me becomes an arbitrary decision. At the least, they should go through the variance process.

Two different types of due process, procedural and substantive. this certianly qualifies as procedural due process, due to the fact some changes are made. Procedural due process could be satisified simply by sending the owner a letter stating what he needs to do appeal the decision, get a variance, etc.
 

imaplanner

Cyburbian
Messages
6,673
Points
27
cololi said:
The lots should be combined. How can you approve a building permit if the lot is not conforming? Do you wavethe lot size requirement, reduce setbacks? .
Takings anyone? ;-)

If the existing lot is too small to enable a building to meet the setbacks then there would seem to be good reason for a variance under the usual hardship provisions.

My jurisdiction is dealing with similar issues but with lots that are affected by wetlands.
 

Richmond Jake

You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!
Messages
18,309
Points
44
I'll add a couple of more thoughts then I'll shut up. I'm not necessarily opposed to the combination of lots. I can see beneficial circumstances if parcels are too small to accommodate on-site septic disposal systems or environmental constraints limit buildable area (but I guess that's different if they are legal, buildable, nonconforming parcels of record prior to an ordinance change). In either case, to combine lots without notice to the owner does not seem ethical or fair.

To those of you that have automatic merger: a) how often does this happen, and b) are you ever challenged?
 

luckless pedestrian

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
11,817
Points
44
Avast ye mates!

RichmondJake said:
I'll add a couple of more thoughts then I'll shut up. I'm not necessarily opposed to the combination of lots. I can see beneficial circumstances if parcels are too small to accommodate on-site septic disposal systems or environmental constraints limit buildable area (but I guess that's different if they are legal, buildable, nonconforming parcels of record prior to an ordinance change). In either case, to combine lots without notice to the owner does not seem ethical or fair.

To those of you that have automatic merger: a) how often does this happen, and b) are you ever challenged?
okay -

a) it happens everytime the town increases minimum lot sizes so the answer is it depends
and
b)never been challenged legally - explaining it in my office/at the counter, lots of times, yes -

i do know what you are saying - it's kind of creepy that lots can merge in the night - but nonconformity has its limits -

okay truce - we'll agree to disagree on this one - :b:
 

Richmond Jake

You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!
Messages
18,309
Points
44
luckless pedestrian said:
....okay truce - we'll agree to disagree on this one - :b:
Cheers to you, too. (But I'm right ;-) ) :b:
 

donk

Cyburbian
Messages
6,970
Points
30
What does your enabling legislation say?

In ON, they would merge automatically (in most cases) regardless of conformity, in NB they remain separate. It all depends on what the act says. Land titles vs land registry as noted throws a whole other series of issues into the case.

With respect to "buildability" most codes/by-0law I have read would allow for a strucuture to be built provided that the building met the minimum setback and maximum coverage provisons.
 

luckless pedestrian

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
11,817
Points
44
donk said:
What does your enabling legislation say?

With respect to "buildability" most codes/by-0law I have read would allow for a strucuture to be built provided that the building met the minimum setback and maximum coverage provisons.
We have this too -

so there - richmond! ;)
 

Richmond Jake

You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!
Messages
18,309
Points
44
luckless pedestrian said:
...so there - richmond! ;)
[ot]I respond to either RJ or Jake. I haven't been in Richmond for a few years. ;-) I wish I had my JD in NE because I could retire fat, dumb and happy in just a few years because I'm still right. :-D [/ot]
 
Last edited:

luckless pedestrian

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
11,817
Points
44
RichmondJake said:
[ot]I respond to either RJ or Jake. I haven't been in Richmond for a few years. ;-) I wish I had my JD in NE because I could retire fat, dumb and happy in just a few years because I'm still right. :-D [/ot]
woops okay - :r:

yes, i wish i listened to my dad when he told me to go to law school but i moved to boston instead - but even if listened to my dad, i'd still be right because you put 2 lawyers in a room you always get 2 different answers and sometimes (not always), they're both right ^o) :s: :-\

my first town attorney gave me wise advice - it's all legal until you get to court - :6:

LOL/smirk - :c:
 

NHPlanner

A shadow of my former self
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
9,901
Points
38
RichmondJake said:
I can see beneficial circumstances if parcels are too small to accommodate on-site septic disposal systems
That's exactly the reason why it's done in NH. Close to 90% of the state is not serviced by public sewer, and on-site septic is a critical piece of the lot size requirements in communities. Hence, the contiguous non-conforming lots owned by the same entity are automatically combined for zoning purposes.
 

ssc

Cyburbian
Messages
209
Points
9
RichmondJake said:
To those of you that have automatic merger: a) how often does this happen, and b) are you ever challenged?
a) once in a while
b) not yet:-D
 

luckless pedestrian

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
11,817
Points
44
Bumping this old thread to ask if anyone has considered taking this provision out of their ordinance? It's a thing in New England, it seems, but has anyone had this provision and then removed it?

My current community's city solicitor wants to remove the provision and I am wondering if anyone else has done it?
 

Faust_Motel

Cyburbian
Messages
405
Points
18
We have automatic merger for nonconforming lots but if there are sewer connections or permitted septic systems for each lot both of those cases break the merger. Honestly merger happens so infrequently here there isn't much reason to have it.
 

mendelman

Unfrozen Caveman Planner
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
13,169
Points
47
We don't have it here in my city in NEOH.

The only time I've encountered it was at one of my jobs in the Chicago suburbs, but they had removed the 'automatic' merger requirement.

But we didn't have a minimum threshold for such nonconforming buildable lots. Such lots were buildable to a minimum of 50 foot wide and 6,250 sqft. This wasn't much of an issue for us as the vast majority of the existing nonconforming lots were at or more than the minimum and the bulk standards for setbacks, etc were adjusted to permit the literal buildability of the lot for a SFH.
 
Top