Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara
7 Cal. 4th 725, 29 Cal. Rptr. 2d 804, 872 P.2d 143 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The California Subdivision Map Act impliedly preempts local zoning ordinances that require the merger of contiguous parcels as a condition of issuing a development permit if those parcels do not meet the specific substantive criteria for compulsory merger set forth in Government Code § 66451.11.
Facts:
- John and Frances Morehart own Block 132, a 3.7-acre parcel located in the 'Naples Townsite,' a subdivision created by a map filed in 1888.
- In 1977, Morehart Land Company, a corporation primarily owned by the Morehart family, purchased a large portion of the Naples Townsite.
- The County of Santa Barbara subsequently zoned the Naples area to require a minimum lot size of 100 acres for each dwelling unit.
- On July 2, 1984, the County initiated a rezoning of 'antiquated subdivisions,' requiring undersized lots to be combined to meet current density standards before development, unless contiguous lots were 'held in separate ownership' prior to that date.
- Four days before the cutoff date, on June 28, 1984, Morehart Land Company conveyed numerous parcels adjacent to Block 132 to the Moreharts' children and family-owned corporations to establish separate ownership.
- The County later enacted formal ordinances requiring the combination of such parcels to the maximum extent possible before a coastal development permit could be issued.
- The Moreharts applied for a coastal development permit to build a single-family home on their 3.7-acre Block 132.
- The County denied the application, determining that because the adjoining parcels were owned by family members and related corporations, recombination was feasible and required under the ordinances to more closely comply with the 100-acre minimum lot size.
Procedural Posture:
- John and Frances Morehart sued the County of Santa Barbara in the state trial court, seeking a writ of mandate, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages.
- The trial court severed the equitable claims from the damages claims for a separate trial.
- The trial court granted judgment for the Moreharts on the severed claims, declaring the county's ordinances preempted by the Subdivision Map Act and therefore void.
- The trial court issued a writ of mandate directing the county to set aside its denial of the Moreharts' development permit application.
- The County of Santa Barbara, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the ordinances were not preempted because they regulated development, a subject distinct from the Subdivision Map Act's regulation of mergers for sale, lease, or financing.
- The Supreme Court of California granted review to consider the Court of Appeal's holding.
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 the California Subdivision Map Act, which provides the exclusive authority for local agencies to initiate parcel mergers, impliedly preempt a county zoning ordinance that requires a landowner to merge contiguous undersized parcels as a condition of obtaining a development permit, even if the parcels do not meet the statutory criteria for a compulsory merger under the Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Lucas, C. J.
Yes. A local zoning ordinance requiring the merger of parcels as a condition for development is impliedly preempted by the Subdivision Map Act if the parcels do not meet the substantive standards for compulsory merger outlined in § 66451.11 of the Act. The Court reasoned that while the Act does not expressly preempt the County's ordinances—because the Act's literal terms apply to agency-initiated mergers for purposes of sale, lease, or financing, whereas the ordinances are triggered by a landowner's development application—it does so by implication. The legislative history and the detailed, specific standards in § 66451.11 demonstrate a 'paramount state concern' for statewide uniformity in the conditions under which parcels may be involuntarily merged for development purposes. The statute provides specific qualitative criteria for merger (e.g., lack of water, illegal creation, size less than 5,000 sq. ft.) but specifically prohibits merger based solely on a failure to meet 'minimum lot size or density standards.' The County's ordinances attempt to do precisely what the state law forbids: compel a merger solely to enforce local density standards, thereby circumventing the state's uniform statutory scheme.
Concurring - Mosk, J.
The concurring opinion agrees with the judgment but emphasizes the narrowness of the holding. The court did not have to decide the foundational question of what constitutes the legal 'creation' of a parcel from a pre-1893 'paper subdivision' map because the County admitted in its legal filings that the Moreharts' lot was a legally created parcel. Justice Mosk expresses doubt that an inaccurate, information-poor map from the 19th century could be said to 'create' a legal subdivision under modern law and suggests this critical issue remains unresolved for future cases or legislative action.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the balance of power between state statutes and local zoning authority concerning land use. It establishes that local governments cannot use their zoning power over development permits as leverage to compel parcel mergers that would not be permissible under the Subdivision Map Act's uniform statewide standards. The ruling prevents local agencies from using land use regulations to circumvent specific prohibitions in state law, thereby protecting owners of legally-created, non-conforming parcels from being forced to combine their property simply to meet modern density goals. This precedent strengthens the preemptive force of the Subdivision Map Act and limits the ability of local governments to impose merger conditions beyond those expressly authorized by the state legislature.
