Gardner v. County of Sonoma
62 P.3d 103, 129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 869, 29 Cal. 4th 990 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An antiquated subdivision map recorded prior to the enactment of any statewide subdivision laws does not, by itself, establish legally cognizable parcels under the California Subdivision Map Act, especially if the property was never subsequently conveyed in subdivided form.
Facts:
- In May 1865, S.H. Greene recorded a map entitled “The Redwood Estate of S.H. Greene” with the Sonoma County Recorder, purporting to depict nearly 90 rectangular lots over more than 1,000 acres of his property.
- The Greene map identified two creeks and a county road but showed no interior roads, easements, drainage systems, or other subdivision infrastructure.
- No subdivision map regulations existed in 1865, so the Greene map was submitted and accepted for recordation without review or approval by any public entity.
- The Thompson Atlas of Sonoma County, adopted in 1877 as the “official map” of Sonoma County for township lines and other unspecified county purposes, included the purported subdivision shown on the Greene map.
- In 1903, the Greene family made a bulk conveyance of approximately 352 acres to Paul Bertoli, using the Greene map for reference but describing the property in detail using metes and bounds.
- In 1990, Jack and Jocelyn Gardner, and Lindsay and Hilary Gardner (plaintiffs), acquired approximately 158 acres of the Bertoli conveyance.
- The plaintiffs' property, located in the south-central area of the purported Greene subdivision, includes two of the original rectangular lots in full and fragments of 10 other original lots.
- The property has remained intact under sequential owners throughout its history and has been repeatedly and consistently conveyed as a single unit or part of a single unit of land, with none of the 12 purported lots ever separately conveyed.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1996, Jack and Jocelyn Gardner and Lindsay and Hilary Gardner (plaintiffs) applied to the Sonoma County’s permit and resource management department for 12 certificates of compliance with the Subdivision Map Act.
- The department denied the Gardners’ application, concluding the 1865 Greene map did not create legally cognizable parcels because it predated the first statewide subdivision map statute.
- The planning commission denied the Gardners’ appeal of the department’s action, but authorized one certificate of compliance recognizing the property as a single parcel.
- The Gardners appealed the commission’s decision to the County Board of Supervisors, which adopted a resolution upholding the denial of 12 certificates of compliance.
- The Gardners filed a petition for writ of mandate in superior court to compel the County to issue the 12 certificates of compliance.
- The superior court denied the petition, ruling that the Greene map did not create legal parcels within the meaning of the Subdivision Map Act.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the superior court's judgment, holding that legislative intent precludes legal recognition of subdivision lots shown on antiquated maps recorded before 1893.
- The California Supreme Court granted the Gardners’ petition for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an antiquated subdivision map, recorded in 1865 without any applicable subdivision regulations, create legally cognizable parcels for which a certificate of compliance must be issued under the California Subdivision Map Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Baxter, J.
No, an antiquated subdivision map, recorded in 1865 when no statewide subdivision laws existed, does not, by itself, create legally cognizable parcels for which a certificate of compliance must be issued under the California Subdivision Map Act (SMA). The court reasoned that the SMA is the primary regulatory control governing subdivision, requiring local approval and recordation of maps for new divisions. The 1865 Greene map does not qualify as a "final map," "parcel map," "official map," or "certificate of exception" under the SMA's statutory definitions, as these require local agency review and approval, which was not available statewide before 1893. The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that "grandfather" provisions (sections 66499.30(d) and 66451.10(a)) applied, clarifying that these protect subdivisions already established in compliance with existing laws or exempt from existing laws at the time of establishment, or prevent the merger of already created parcels. The Greene map was never "filed for approval" or "subsequently approved" by a local agency as contemplated by the SMA. While antiquated maps could provide legal descriptions for conveyances, they did not inherently alter the legal status of properties by creating separate parcels without an attendant conveyance of those individual lots. The court also emphasized that recognizing such an antiquated map as establishing legal parcels would frustrate the SMA's objectives of encouraging orderly community development, coordinating planning, and ensuring proper infrastructure, by permitting sales without adherence to modern land-use regulations, environmental review, or public notice requirements.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical precedent regarding the legal recognition of historical property divisions under modern land-use law, particularly California's Subdivision Map Act (SMA). By denying legal effect to a pre-1893 recorded map without subsequent separate conveyances, the Supreme Court reinforces the state's public policy favoring comprehensive and prospective land-use planning. This decision prevents developers from bypassing contemporary planning, environmental, and infrastructure requirements by invoking ancient, unapproved subdivision maps. It underscores that the SMA's 'grandfather' provisions are narrowly construed to protect reliance on existing prior laws, not to retroactively create legal status where none existed.
