TOP

California Land Law

Use the alphabetical index to quickly get the information you want!  For example, if you are looking for California Codes , click on Calif.  Page down to the heading California Codes, click on codes.  Or, click on the Co, and Search California Codes should be in view under the heading Codes.  Everything underlined in blue is linked directly to the site named.  Looking for the On-Line Manual of Instructions?  Click on the M, then page down to Manual of Instructions.

A  Amer  Ar  B  Bound C  Calif Calt Co Cr  D  Di E  En  Eq  F  Fr  G  Gi Gov Gp H  I  Inter  J  K  L  Le  Lot M  

Me  Mon N  Nation  Ne  North  O  P  Pr  Q  R  Re  Right  S  Search  Street  Su  Sur  T  Ti  To  Tr  U  V  W  X  Y  Z

You are visitor number

since 09-29-00

I created this page because of my interest in land surveying and land law.  I am not a lawyer.  If you need legal advice about a land law question I suggest you call a real estate attorney.  What I have listed here are excerpts from case law that I researched at a law library.  If you have a bet with someone about a California Land Law question you will only lose your money here if my web page is the authority you cite.  If, however, you share my interest in the law and land surveying, this could be a starting place for further research.  Be forewarned that I have not Shepardized all the cases cited.  Some decisions and statements listed here may have been overturned and are no longer true in California.  Hopefully, I have kept these to a minimum.  Enjoy the rest.

This site was created on 03-12-00 by Michael Wartenberg, Calif. PLS 7007 and last edited on 07-31-01

Thanks for coming by!

Hope you find something you can use.

 Got comments? Found Dead Links? E-mail me!

Back to Index

Legend

20  Cal. 127 = Page 127 of Volume 20 of the California Supreme Court Reports, Cal.2d = second series, Cal.3d = third series, Cal.4th = fourth series

Cal.App. or C.A. = California Appellate Reports, Cal.App.2d = second series, Cal.App.3d = third series, Cal.App.4th = fourth series

S.Ct. = Supreme Court Reporter

U.S. = United States Reports

Back to Index

Abandonment by Estoppel

"...the San Diego decision does not rigidly reject abandonment by estoppel under all circumstances."

(Palo Alto Inv. Co. v County of Placer (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 368)

(County of San Diego v California Water etc., 30 Cal.2d 817)

Back to Index

Abandonment of a Cemetery

(Laurel Hill Cemetery Assn. v All Persons (1945) 69 Cal.App.2d 190)

Back to Index

Abandonment of Condemnation

"California eminent domain law specifically allows a condemner to abandon a condemnation proceeding...The abandonment statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 1268.510...was designed to provide the flexibility necessary to protect the public plaintiff from being required to take property it no longer needs."

(City of Torrance v Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 195, 209)

(People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v Union Pacific Land Resources Corp. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 307)

Back to Index

"...abandonment may occur even after judgment so long as a written notice of abandonment is served on the condemnee and filed in court within 30 days after final judgment."

(People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v Union Pacific Land Resources Corp. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 307)

Back to Index

"...upon dismissal, the property owner is entitled to an award of litigation expenses, including costs, attorney fees and expert fees...There is, however, no authority for the award of interest in an eminent domain action that has been abandoned."

(People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v Union Pacific Land Resources Corp. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 307)

Back to Index

Abandonment of a County Road

(Heist v County of Colusa (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 841)

(Palo Alto Inv. Co. v County of Placer (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 367)

Back to Index

Abandonment of a Mapped Street

Of a portion of a mapped street in a recorded subdivision

(Ratchford v County of Sonoma (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 1056)

Back to Index

Abandonment of a private easement

"A private easement to a roadway acquired by grant is not affected by a subsequent abandonment of the highway by the board of supervisors as a public thoroughfare.  It may survive such an abandonment."

(Severo v Pacheco (1946) 75 C.A.2d 33)

Back to Index

For an easement...abandoned by nonuse or use outside its limitations does not 'revert' to the grantor, it is simply extinguished."

(City of Manhattan Beach v Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 232)

Back to Index

Abandonment of a public easement

"When a public easement in a street or alley is officially abandoned, title reverts to the owner or owners of the underlying fee."

(Pilkington v Fausone (1970) 11 C.A.3d 351)

(Palo Alto Inv. Co. v County of Placer (1969) 269 C.A.2d 369)

Back to Index

Abandonment of a public road

"To abandon a public road, the City must find that it is no longer necessary, i.e., there is no present or future use for the road, and that the abandonment is in the public interest."

(Citizens Against Gated Enclaves v Whitley Heights Civic Assn. (1994) 23 Cal.App4th 812)

Back to Index

Abatable

"...means reasonably abatable in light of the fundamental considerations that enter into the determination, such as expense, time, and legitimate competing interests."

(Beck Development Co. v Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1220)

Back to Index

Abutter's Rights

"An abutting owner has two kinds of rights in a highway, a public right..., and certain private rights which arise from his ownership of property contiguous to the highway..."

(People v Ricciardi (1943) 23 C.2d 390)

Back to Index

"...he does have the right of direct access to the highway and an easement of reasonable view of the property from such highway..."

(People v Ricciardi (1943) 23 C.2d 390)

(Williams v Los Angeles Ry. Co., 150 Cal. 592)

Back to Index

Access Rights

"If the impairment of access is not substantial, the access impairment is not compensable whether the impairment is the result of the exercise of "police power" to regulate traffic or the result of condemnation proceedings unrelated to the purported exercise of "police power"."

(San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Bd. v Price Co. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1550)

Back to Index

"...each impairment-of-access case is decided on the particular fact situation presented, with little reliance placed on judicial precedent.  Among the court decisions can be found authority in favor of or against compensability on virtually any set of facts."

(San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Bd. v Price Co. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1550)

Back to Index

Accretion

"Where, from natural causes, land forms by imperceptible degrees upon the bank of a river or stream, navigable or not navigable, either by accumulation of material or by the recession of the stream, such land belongs to the owner of the bank, subject to any existing right of way over the bank."

(Civil Code, Sec. 1014)

Back to Index

"...only if the artificial activity was near enough to the accretion to have directly caused it can the accretion be deemed artificial."

(State of California ex rel. State Lands Commission v Superior Court of Sacramento County (1995) 11 Cal.4th 50)

Back to Index

Acquiescence

Back to Index

Acre

"An acre can be a circular, square, triangular, irregular, broad or narrow strip of land.  Indeed, an acre is not a concrete form; it is a term of quantity and it can be applied to land in all manner of patterns."

(Calvi v Bittner (1961) 198 Cal.App.2d 312)

(Ganiats Construction, Inc. v Hesse (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d 377)

Back to Index

Act to ascertain and settle private land claims in the State of California

(Minturn v Brower (1864) 24 Cal. 656)

Back to Index

Adverse Possession

by H Gerrity

Back to Index

by Stuart A. Safine, Esq.

Back to Index

by Los Angeles Mission College Paralegal Studies Program

Back to Index

"...is founded upon the economic conception that all things should be used according to their nature and purpose.  The man so using a thing, and using and preserving it for a certain length of time, has done a work beneficial to the community.  He deserves well of the state, and his reward is the conferring upon him of the title to the thing used."

(Finley v Yuba County Water Dist. (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 696)

(Teisen (1917) ABAJ 127)

Back to Index

"To establish title by adverse possession, one must not only show that such possession was open, notorious, hostile, exclusive, continuous, and uninterrupted, but also must show the payment of taxes."

(Kraus v Griswold (1965) 232 C.A.2d 700)

Back to Index

"The fact that the true owner also pays the taxes is immaterial..."

(Summary of California Law, B.E. Witkin, Vol. 3, 1973, pg. 1822)

(Pereira Farms Corp. v Simas (1924) 69 C.A. 159)

Back to Index

"The owner of an easement by implication may acquire the underlying fee by adverse possession..."

(Southern Pac. Co. v City & County of S. F. (1964) 62 C.2d 50)

Back to Index

Keri's California Bar Review Notes on Adverse Possession

Back to Index

How to avoid jail time when stealing real estate

Back to Index

Adverse Possession of Public Land

Back to Index

"...no possession by any person, firm or corporation no matter how long continued of any land, water, water right, easement, or other property whatsoever dedicated to a public use by a public utility, or dedicated to or owned by the state or any public entity, shall ever ripen into any title, interest or right against the owner thereof."

(Civil Code Sec. 1007)

(People v Kerber, 152 Cal. 731)

Back to Index

"The provisions of Civil Code Sec. 1007 are not limited to property that is owned by a particular governmental entity, but apply to any property dedicated to the public in general."

(Hays v Vanek (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 274)

Back to Index

"...a person may obtain title by adverse possession where such party claims title against the entire world excepting the government."

(Abar v Rogers (1972) 23 Cal App 3d 508)

(LeFevre v Borwick (1953) 116 C.A.2d 789) (Newman v Cornelius (1970) 3 Cal.App.3d 279)

(Lord v Sawyer, 57 Cal. 65) (Allen v McKay & Co., 120 Cal. 332)

Back to Index

Agreed Boundary

"The doctrine of an agreed boundary line is well settled, and such agreements are favored by the courts."

(Link v Cole Investment Co. (1962) 199 C.A.2d 188)

Back to Index

"To establish a title by agreed boundary it is necessary to show that there was an uncertainty as to the true boundary line, an agreement, express or implied, between the conterminous owners fixing the line, and acceptance and acquiescence in the line so fixed for a period equal to the statute of limitations or under such circumstances that substantial loss would be caused by a change of its position."

(Kraus v Griswold (1965) 232 C.A.2d 698)

(Armitage v Decker (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 888)

(Mesnick v Caton (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1255)

Back to Index

"Acceptance or acquiescence in the line so fixed for a period equal to that prescribed in the applicable statute of limitation (five years) establishes the agreed boundary as the actual boundary."

(Finley v Yuba County Water Dist. (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 693)

(Martin v Lopes (1946) 28 C.2d 618)

Back to Index

"Although the agreed-boundary doctrine is well established in California, our case law has recognized that the doctrine properly may be invoked only under carefully specified circumstances."

(Bryant v Blevins (1994) 9 Cal.App.4th 55)

Back to Index

"An agreed boundary line may be established deliberately, by acquiescence or by mistake. Therefore, a boundary established pursuant to the doctrine of agreed boundaries supersedes the original true boundary should that boundary and the variance be subsequently discovered."

(Finley v Yuba County Water Dist. (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 699)

Back to Index

"...decisions of the Supreme Court and a majority of the Courts of Appeal adhere to the rule that the possibility of accurately surveying the true line is immaterial..."

(Armitage v Decker (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 900)

Back to Index

"The authorities are in conflict on the question of whether the property must actually be occupied up to the agreed line.  ...the question must be considered as still unanswered in California."

(Humphrey v Futter (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 340)

Back to Index

"...Absent proof of acceptance of the fence as a boundary by owners on both sides, there was no basis for an inference of uncertainty and agreement."

(Armitage v Decker (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 901)

Back to Index

"...to allow the doctrine of agreed boundaries to supersede recorded legal descriptions...would foster litigation rather than preventing it."

(Bryant v Blevins (1994) 9 Cal.App.4th 57)

Back to Index

Alisos Rancho

(Glenn v Cook (1952) 108 Cal.App.2d 784)

Back to Index

Ambiguity

"Where an ambiguity appears on the face of the deed, parol evidence is admissible to determine the issue involved."

(City of Redlands v Nickerson (1961) 188 Cal.App2d 118)

Back to Index

Amer

American Land Title Association (ALTA)

ALTA/ACSM Survey Requirements 1997

Back to Index

Annexation

"The general rule is that land cannot be annexed to a city or town unless it is contiguous thereto, but it is not necessary that each and every tract of land sought to be annexed shall be contiguous to the municipality."

(Ganiats Construction, Inc. v Hesse (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d 377)

Back to Index

San Diego Bay Tidelands Annexation (1954)

South Bay Annexation (1957)

Western Salt Company Tract (1955)

"Suffice it to say that there was a colorable attempt to comply with the annexation statutes..."

(Hazelton v City of San Diego (1960) 183 Cal.App.2d 131)

Back to Index

"A private individual has no legal capacity to attack the fixing or extension of municipal limits.  His sole remedy is in quo warranto."

(Hazelton v City of San Diego (1960) 183 Cal.App.2d 131)

Back to Index

Appellate Briefs

California

Back to Index

Appellate Courts

"An appellate tribunal is neither authorized nor warranted in substituting its judgment for the judgment of the trial judge."

(Mesnick v Caton (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1252)

Back to Index

"The whole question concerning the location of a government corner is one of fact, and a trial court having determined it, that ends the matter so far as an appellate court is concerned, provided there is substantial evidence to support the trial court's conclusion."

(Golden v City of Vallejo (1919) 41 Cal.App. 114)

Back to Index

"The appellate court must accept as established all facts and all inferences favorable to respondent which find substantial support in the evidence."

(Chandler v Hibberd (1958) 165 C.A.2d 60)

Back to Index

Apportionment

"There must be a proved surplus or shortage in a boundary before apportionment of the land areas can be made."

(Chandler v Hibberd (1958) 165 C.A.2d 41)

Back to Index

"The application of the rule depends on causes that contribute to the error in the original survey or plat, and it must yield to primary evidence of definite description and precise location."

(Balestrieri v Sullivan, 142 Cal.App.2d 338)

Back to Index

Approximately

"Specific performance is not precluded by reference to the exception in the northeast corner as "approximately 2 1/2 acres."  As we have seen in United Truckmen, Inc. v. Lorentz, 114 Cal.App.2d 26, the terms "about" and "approximately" were both used in that description."

(Calvi v Bittner (1961) 198 Cal.App.2d 312)

Back to Index

Appurtenant Easements, Defined

(Civil Code Sec. 801)

Back to Index

Ar

Area (see Quantity)

"...by dividing Lot...into portions of equal area by means of a line drawn parallel to the outside boundary of the first parcel conveyed,,,"

(Bryant v Blevins (1994) 9 Cal.App.4th 52)

Back to Index

Arizona

"Upon admission to the Union in 1912 Arizona succeeded the Federal Government to title to the bed of the Colorado River."

(Bonelli Cattle Co. v Arizona (1973) 414 U.S. 313)

Back to Index

Arpents

(City of New Orleans v Paine (1893) 147 U.S. 261)

Back to Index

Artificial Accretion

"Under California's long-standing "artificial accretion" rule, as between the state and private upland owners, land along tidelands and navigable rivers that accretes by artificial means, such as local dredging and construction of wing dams and levees, remains in state ownership..."

(State of California ex rel. State Lands Commission v Superior Court of Sacramento County (1995) 11 Cal.4th 52)

(Carpenter v City of Santa Monica (1944) 63 C.A.2d 772)

(People v Hecker (1960) 179 C.A.2d 824)

Back to Index

"...accretions formed gradually and imperceptibly, but caused entirely by artificial means...belong to the state, or its grantee, and do not belong to the upland owner."

(Carpenter v City of Santa Monica (1944) 63 C.A.2d 772)

Back to Index

"...only if the artificial activity was near enough to the accretion to have directly caused it can the accretion be deemed artificial."

(State of California ex rel. State Lands Commission v Superior Court of Sacramento County (1995) 11 Cal.4th 50)

Back to Index

"Accretion is not artificial merely because human activities far away contributed to it.  The dividing line between what is and is not in the immediate vicinity will have to be decided on a case-by-case basis..."

(State of California ex rel. State Lands Commission v Superior Court of Sacramento County (1995) 11 Cal.4th 80)

Back to Index

"...artificial accretions, as between two private litigants, belong to the owner of the upland, if he did not create them."

(Carpenter v City of Santa Monica (1944) 63 C.A.2d 793)

Back to Index

Artificial Accretion Rule

Genesis of the California Rule

(Dana v Jackson Street Wharf Co. (1866) 31 Cal. 118)

Back to Index

History of California's Artificial Accretion Rule

(State of California ex rel. State Lands Commission v Superior Court of Sacramento County (1995) 11 Cal.4th 66)

Back to Index

"Problems of proof as to the direct cause of the accretion will be minimized if the artificial accretion rule is limited to human activities in the immediate vicinity of the accreted area."

(State of California ex rel. State Lands Commission v Superior Court of Sacramento County (1995) 11 Cal.4th 78)

Back to Index

Artificial Horizon

"...owing to some defect in the artificial horizon used in determining latitudes, the latitudes given on the map made at that time are not correct..."

(Ferris v Coover (1858) 10 Cal. 592)

Back to Index

Artificial Monuments

"Where it appeared in evidence that all of the monuments of the official survey of a street were lost, and...evidence that...all the improvements on the south side of Fourth street...were on a line occupied by defendants' building and had occupied that line for at least twenty-five years...was the best evidence...to show the location of the south line of Fourth street."

(Hellman v City of Los Angeles (1899) 125 Cal. 383, 386)

Back to Index

Assembly Bills, California State

California State Assembly Home Page

Search Senate and Assembly Bills 1999-2000 session

Back to Index

Attorney General

"Although opinions of the Attorney General are not binding precedent, they are entitled to considerable weight..."

(State of California ex rel. State Lands Commission v Superior Court of Sacramento County (1995) 11 Cal.4th 53)

Back to Index

Avulsion

"If a river or stream, navigable or not navigable, carries away, by sudden violence a considerable and distinguishable part of a bank, and bears it to the opposite bank, or to another part of the same bank, the owner of the part carried away may reclaim it within a year after the owner of the land to which it has been united takes possession thereof."

(Civil Code Section 1015)

(State of California ex rel. State Lands Commission v Superior Court of Sacramento County (1995) 11 Cal.4th 64)

Back to Index

B

Back Line

Rear boundary of a French grant

(City of New Orleans v Paine (1893) 147 U.S. 261)

Back to Index

Belmont Shore-Naples Boundary Settlement

(City of Long Beach v Mansell (1970) 3 Cal.3d 462)

Back to Index

Bernal Rancho

(Freeman v Bellegarde (1895) 108 Cal. 183)

Back to Index

Bixby tideland patents

(City of Long Beach v Mansell (1970) 3 Cal.3d 462)

Back to Index

Blocks

"...in the absence of any agreement or question of title by adverse possession, shortage in a block which has been platted into lots will be prorated among the several lots."

(Brumley v Hall (1952) 110 C.A.2d 638-639)

Back to Index

"A shortage of distance in a block will not be apportioned among all lot owners where facts and circumstances specifically locate the shortage."

(Chandler v Hibberd (1958) 165 C.A.2d 63)  (Balestrieri v Sullivan, 142 Cal.App.2d 332)

Back to Index

"The survey as made in the field and the lines as actually run on the surface of the earth at the time the blocks were surveyed and the plats filed must control."

(Beall v Weir (1909) 11 Cal.App. 369)

Back to Index

Board of Land Commissioners

(Emeric v Penniman (1864) 26 Cal. 123)  (Minturn v Brower (1864) 24 Cal. 644)

Back to Index

"By the act of 1851 (March 3), organizing the Board of U.S. Land Commission, it is provided that all land-titles in this State shall be passed in review before that commission, and that all land shall be deemed public the title to which shall not be confirmed under the law."

(Ferris v Coover (1858) 10 Cal. 597)

(Botiller v Dominguez (1888) 130 U.S. 238)

Back to Index

Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors (California)

Board Rules

Home

Policy Resolutions

Back to Index

Bona Fide Rights

"Bona fide rights are those acquired in good faith under the law."

(1973 BLM Manual of Surveying Instructions, 6-13, pg.147)

Back to Index

"The basic principles of protecting bona fide rights are the same in either the dependent or the independent resurvey.  Each is intended to show the original position of entered or patented lands included in the original description."

(1973 BLM Manual of Surveying Instructions, 6-14, pg.147)

Back to Index

Bona Fide Settler

"...must refer to one who has done something more than merely occupy land and put a few improvements on it.  It cannot be said that every one who enters upon land and builds a fence and cabin or a house is a bona fide settler."

(McLaughlin v Monette, 89 Cal. 363)

Back to Index

Books

California Land Law

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Deskbook

Eminent Domain Guide

Back to Index

(Grimes, A Treatise on the Law of Surveying and Boundaries, 4th ed. 1976)

Real Property Books

Solano Press Books

Solano Press Books is a California publishing house specializing in land use, planning law, and environmental subjects.

(Summary of California Law, B.E. Witkin, Eighth Ed., Vol. 3, 1973, pg. 1856)

Back to Index

Bound

Boundaries

"...if the boundaries set by surveyors were to be given priority over those agreed to by the landowners, courts and perhaps juries could often be compelled to determine which of two or more conflicting surveys was the most accurate.  Both courts and juries have been forced to settle such disputes in the past, and experience reveals it is no easy task."

(Bryant v Blevins (1994) 9 Cal.App.4th 64)

Back to Index

"The degree to which a physical boundary assertedly laid out in accordance with an abstract written or pictorial description in a deed or map reflects the true boundary depends a great deal on the individual who actually marks the physical boundary on the land."

(Bryant v Blevins (1994) 9 Cal.App.4th 63)

Back to Index

"...the exact physical locations of a boundary may be uncertain even if the true locations of the landmarks and corners are known."

(Bryant v Blevins (1994) 9 Cal.App.4th 64)

Back to Index

Boundary Line

"A known boundary line may be a monument as well as a physical object upon the ground..."

(MacGregor v Knowlden (1929) 102 Cal.App. 50)

Back to Index

Boundary Line Disputes

by H. Gerrity

Back to Index

"...if appellants desired to have what they were required to do described with such meticulous particularity as their brief would indicate, they should have had a detailed survey and description of said ditch made before they destroyed it."

(Arnold v Hanson (1949) 91 C.A.2d 18)

Back to Index

Brown, Curtis M.

Admits mistake in 1946 re-establishment of the southwest corner of section 27, township 15 south, range 2 east, SBM

(Spear v Smith (1958) 161 C.A.2d 744-752)

Back to Index

Buena Vista Creek Watershed

(City of Carlsbad v Wight (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 756)

Back to Index

Built-up Boundaries

"Built-up Boundaries Outweigh Paper Boundaries"

(4 Cal. Law Review, 293-315)

Back to Index

Bundle of Rights

"As to property reserved by its owner for private use, the right to exclude others is one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property."

(Kaiser Aetna v United States (1979) 444 U.S. 164)

(Nollan v California Coastal Comm'n (1987) 483 US 825, 97 L.Ed.2d 681)

Back to Index

Burden of Proof

Defined

(Evidence Code Section 115)

Back to Index

Bureau of Land Management

Manual of Instructions  Internet Version

Back to Index

Business Goodwill

(City of Fresno v Harrison (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 296)

Back to Index

C

Calif

California Artificial Accretion Rule

History of

(State of California ex rel. State Lands Commission v Superior Court of Sacramento County (1995) 11 Cal.4th 66)

Back to Index

California Coastal Act of 1976

(Public Resources Code Sections 30000 et seq.)

Back to Index

"...was enacted by the Legislature as a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the entire coastal zone of California."

(La Fe, Inc v County of Los Angeles (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 231)

Back to Index

California Code of Regulations

Home Page

Rules of the Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors (Sections 400 - 474.5)

Back to Index

California Codes

Codes

Back to Index

California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA)

(City of Rancho Palos Verdes v City Council (1976) 59 C.A.3d 869)

CEQA Deskbook

(Public Resources Code 21000 et seq.)

Back to Index

California Land Law

Solano Press Book

Back to Index

California Land Use & Planning Law

Curtin's 1999 Edition

Back to Index

California Permit Handbook

A streamlined guide containing the most often required permits

Back to Index

California State Assembly

Home Page

Guide for Accessing California Legislative Information on the Internet

Glossary of Legislative Terms

Back to Index

California State Constitution

Search

Back to Index

California State Government

Links supplied by the Law offices of Geoffrey C. & Colin Haley Etnire

Back to Index

California State Historic District

(Citizens Against Gated Enclaves v Whitley Heights Civic Assn. (1994) 23 Cal.App4th 812)

Back to Index

California State Senate

Search Senate and Assembly Bills 1999-2000 session

Back to Index

California State Statutes

Search

Back to Index

California Supreme Court

"Courts are jurisdictionally bound to follow decisions of the California Supreme Court over the decisions of lower courts reaching a contrary result."

(Hays v Vanek (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 274)

Back to Index

Calt

Calvo Exclusion

"...the [Coastal] Commission agreed that the County had the authority to exempt from coastal development permits development projects involving new single-family homes."

(Buckley v California Coastal Com. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 466)

(Public Resources Code sections 30610.1 and 30610.2)

Back to Index

Carlsbad

Municipal Code

Back to Index

Casmalia Rancho

(Tognazzini v Morganti (1890) 84 Cal. 160)

Back to Index

Certainty

"Certainty is not manifested by interpretations in triplicate."

(Ganiats Construction, Inc. v Hesse (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d 377)

Back to Index

Certificate of Compliance

(Gov. Code Sec. 66499.35 (a) )

Back to Index

(La Fe, Inc v County of Los Angeles (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 233)

Back to Index

Charcoal Corner

Common name for the memorial deposited under a corner set by a government surveyor

(Howard v Cunningham (1918) 36 Cal.App. 232)

(Gordon v Booker (1893) 97 Cal. 587)

Back to Index

Circuit Court Opinions

9th Circuit

Back to Index

Circuity of Travel

"...mere "circuity of travel," in the sense that it refers to the additional distance required to be traversed because of a proper highway construction, should not be used to justify the allowance of compensation to the owner abutting upon the street in the block where the obstruction exists."

(Bacich v Board of Control (1943) 23 Cal.2d 343)

Back to Index

City Engineer Monuments

"Defendants' survey, in so far as it was based upon information obtained from the city engineer's office, was not sufficient to prove that there was an excess of frontage in the block over that shown on the map.  It was not shown when or how these monuments were set, nor were they verified by any kind of proof."

(Hoffman v Van Duzee (1937) 19 C.A. 520)

Back to Index

Claim of Right

"...is not founded on a written instrument...The claimant enters as an intruder and remains such as against the true owner, without any bona fide belief in his title."

(Summary of California Law, B.E. Witkin, Vol. 3, 1973, pg. 1819)

(Kimball v Lohmas (1866) 31 C. 154)

Back to Index

"California follows the majority rule that the claim is sufficient, whether it is deliberately wrongful or based on mistake."

(Summary of California Law, B.E. Witkin, Vol. 3, pg. 1819)

(Winchell v Lambert (1956) 146 C.A.2d 575)

Back to Index

Closing Corner

"We believe that the court was justified in concluding that the use of proportionate measurement to relocate the closing corner was improper because of gross error in the field notes."

(Hanes v Hollow Tree Lumber Co. (1961) 191 C.A.2d 664)

Back to Index

Co

Coastal Boundary Line

"The California Supreme Court held that both as to lands bordered by streams, i.e., riparian lands, and lands bounded by tidal water, i.e., littoral lands, it was "unquestioned law" that "a boundary marked by a water line is a shifting boundary, going landward with erosion and waterward with accretion.""

(City of Oakland v Buteau (1919) 180 Cal. 83)

(Lechuza Villas West v California Coastal Com. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 218)

Back to Index

Coastal Development Permits (CDP)

"...the [Coastal] Commission agreed that the County had the authority to exempt from coastal development permits development projects involving new single-family homes."

(Buckley v California Coastal Com. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 466)

(Public Resources Code sections 30610.1 and 30610.2)

Back to Index

"Once the Commission determined that a lot was within the single-family residence construction area, nothing in the statute permitted the Commission to retain jurisdiction over the decision to develop any part of that lot."

(Buckley v California Coastal Com. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 471)

Back to Index

"...any person...wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone...shall obtain a coastal development permit."

(Public Resources Code sections 30600 (a)

(La Fe, Inc v County of Los Angeles (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 235)

Back to Index

"We conclude substantial evidence supports the Commission's finding that jurisdictional wetlands exist on the Kirkorowiczes' property..."

(Kirkorowicz v Cal. Coastal Com. (2000) Cal.App.4th

Back to Index

Codes

Search California Codes

Back to Index

(Hittell, The Codes And Statutes Of The State of California (A. L. Bancroft and Co. 1876)

"...an early private printing of the statutes..."

(County of Colusa v Charter (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 264)

Back to Index

Colorado River

"The Colorado River has been determined to be a navigable waterway, Arizona v. California, 283 U.S. 423 (1931), and, once found to be navigable, it remains so."

(Bonelli Cattle Co. v Arizona (1973) 414 U.S. 313)

Back to Index

Color of Title

"...is that which in appearance is title, but which in reality is no title...by reason of some defect, not appearing on its face, does not in fact amount to title."

(Bernal v Gleim (1867) 33 Cal. 669)

Back to Index

"The possessor has what appears to be title. and, if he is in good faith, is protected.  This is so even though the instrument is void on its face."

(Helvey v Lillis (1934) 136 C.A. 644)

Back to Index

Colusa County Road Act of 1872

(County of Colusa v Charter (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 257)

Back to Index

Common Law

"The common law is not immutable but flexible, and by its own principles adapts itself to varying conditions."

(State of California ex rel. State Lands Commission v Superior Court of Sacramento County (1995) 11 Cal.4th 75)

Back to Index

Common Law Dedication

"A common law dedication of a roadway to the public can be proved in one of two ways: by showing approval or acquiescence of the owner in the use of the road by members of the public...(implied-in-fact), or by establishing open and continuous use by the public for a prescriptive period." (implied-in-law)

(Hays v Vanek (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 272)

(Brumbaugh v County of Imperial (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 561)

Back to Index

Compensation

"...under the California 'or damages' clause compensation is not allowed except for an actionable interference with a property right."

(People v Ricciardi (1943) 23 C.2d 398)

Back to Index

"It is only the 'compensation,' the 'award,' which our constitution declares shall be found and fixed by a jury."

(People v Ricciardi (1943) 23 C.2d 402)

Back to Index

Condemnation

"Whatever additional market value the land may have had by reason of these rights (subordinate rights of a riparian land owner)...this value you must include in your estimate of the value of the land sought to be condemned."

(City of Los Angeles v Pomeroy, 124 Cal. 597)

(City of San Diego v Sloane (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 663)

Back to Index

"...three requirements must be met to establish that the land remaining to the owner after condemnation is part of a "larger parcel": (1) unity of title; (2) contiguity of the parcels; and (3) unity of use."

(City of San Diego v Neumann (1993) 6 Cal.4th 738)

Back to Index

Conditional Use Permit

(Lambert v City & County of San Francisco (1997) 57 Cal.App4th 1174)

Back to Index

Consequential Damage

"The term "consequential damage," is used as meaning a diminution in value of land not actually acquired by the State, occasioned by the public improvement."

(Bacich v Board of Control (1943) 23 Cal.2d 343)

Back to Index

Conservation Easement, Defined

(Civil Code Sec. 815.1)

Back to Index

Constitutional Rights

"There is no constitutional right on the part of landowners to develop their property for maximum economic profit, or to receive compensation when land use regulations restrict their ability to do so."

(Lambert v City & County of San Francisco (1997) 57 Cal.App4th 1179)

Back to Index

Constitution, California State

Search

Back to Index

Construction of Deeds

"It is impossible to lay down an invariable and universal rule of construction, as every transaction must be considered individually."

(City of Manhattan Beach v Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 232)

Back to Index

Constructive Notice

"The mere fact that an instrument has been recorded does not give constructive notice thereof unless there is some statute authorizing or permitting such instrument to be placed of record and at the same time making the effect of such recording constructive notice."

(Stearns v Title Ins. & Trust Co. (1971) 18 C.A.3d 169)

(Dreifus v Marx (1940) 40 C.A.2d 461)  (Brown v Johnson (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 844)

Back to Index

"A record of survey is not an instrument within the meaning of Civil Code section 1215.  Therefore a record of survey does not impart constructive notice."

(Hoag v Howard (1880) 55 Cal. 564-567)

(Stearns v Title Ins. & Trust Co. (1971) 18 C.A.3d 169)

Back to Index

"The law is not clear whether recording gives constructive notice of all other documents referenced in the recorded document."

(California Real Estate Law, pg. 227)

(Gates Rubber Co. v Ulman (1989) 214 C.A.3d 356)

Back to Index

"The recordation of United States Government Surveys by the Department of Interior is provided for by section 751 of title 43 of the United States Code.  The statute, however, does not provide for constructive notice."

(John Taft Corp. v Advisory Agency (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 756)

(United States Code, Title 43, section 751)

Back to Index

Constructive Taking

(People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v Diversified Properties Co. III (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 429)

Back to Index

Contiguity

"...three requirements must be met to establish that the land remaining to the owner after condemnation is part of a "larger parcel": (1) unity of title; (2) contiguity of the parcels; and (3) unity of use."

(City of San Diego v Neumann (1993) 6 Cal.4th 738)

Back to Index

"Exceptions have been recognized...to the rule of strict physical contiguity where the factual situation was found to warrant such an exception."

(City of Los Angeles v Wolfe (1971) 6 Cal.3d 326)

(City of San Diego v Neumann (1993) 6 Cal.4th 738)

Back to Index

Contiguous

"...contiguous realty need have only a minimum common boundary with the adjacent property..."

(Ganiats Construction, Inc. v Hesse (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d 377)

Back to Index

"...touching at a point or along a boundary..."

(Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., 1979, pg. 290)

Back to Index

Continuing Nuisance

"The court identified the salient feature of a continuing nuisance as being an impact that may vary over time, that is, an impact that will repeatedly disturb the property or which may gradually increase over time.'

(Beck Development Co. v Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1218)

Back to Index

Contract

"This is but an application of the rule that when the meaning of the language of a contract is doubtful the acts of the parties done under it afford one of the most reliable clues to the intention of the parties."

(Pacific Gas & Elec. Co . v Minnette (1953) 115 C.A.2d 704)

Back to Index

Conveyance

Defined

(Civil Code Section 1215)

Back to Index

Rules for construing the descriptive part of a conveyance

(Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 2077)

Back to Index

"If a conveyance is open to construction as to the extent of the grant, the most reliable circumstance in aid of such construction is the practical construction given it by the acts of the parties during the years immediately following its execution."

(White v State of California (1971) 21 C.A.3d 742)

Back to Index

Corner

"A survey from the nearest established corner is least liable to error."

(Gordon v Booker (1893) 97 Cal. 586)

(State of California v Thompson (1971) 22 C.A.3d 379)

Back to Index

Corner Records

San Diego County Corner Record Processing Manual

Back to Index

Coronado

"In 1923 the State of California conveyed to the City of Coronado its right, title and interest in certain tide and submerged lands..."

(City of Coronado v San Diego Unified Port District (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 455)

Back to Index

County Road

"Public roads, however, are not county roads until accepted as such by appropriate resolution of the board of supervisors."

(Hays v Vanek (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 284)

Back to Index

County Surveyor's Map

"...the reference in the deed to the map of the county surveyor,...is not controlling as to the land intended to be granted by the boundary of the rancho, where said boundary is called for in the deed..."

(Orena v Newlove (1908) 153 Cal. 137)

Back to Index

Courses and Distances

"Evidence based upon courses and distances from other known points is admissible to fix a corner, where no corner is found, but never to change the location of an original corner when found."

(Gordon v Booker (1893) 97 Cal. 588)

Back to Index

"The court acknowledged that, generally, a call for a natural monument had precedence over courses and distances but here it rejected the call to the creek..."

(Hanes v Hollow Tree Lumber Co. (1961) 191 C.A.2d 663)

Back to Index

"...courses and distances in a survey are controlled by fixed and permanent monuments."

(Ferris v Coover (1858) 10 Cal. 601)

Cr

Creek

"Where a creek is made the boundary of the land conveyed, and the calls of the conveyance ascend the creek, the line ascending the creek follows the thread of the stream, and the courses and distances must yield..."

(Freeman v Bellegarde (1895) 108 Cal. 179)

Back to Index

Cul-de-Sac

"Many authorities and writers have either declared or intimated that the creation of a cul-de-sac, that is, the blocking of access to the next intersecting street in one direction is compensable, although the access still exists in the opposite direction to an intersecting street."

(Bacich v Board of Control (1943) 23 Cal.2d 343)

Back to Index

Cuyama Rancho

(Chandler v Hibberd (1958) 165 C.A.2d 60)

Back to Index

D

Damnum Absque Injuria

"A loss which does not give rise to an action for damages against the person causing it."

(Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., 1979, pg. 354)

(Los Angeles Athletic Club v Santa Monica (1944) 63 Cal.App.2d 795)

Back to Index

Dedication

"...when a purchaser of land which has been offered for dedication takes no action to revoke the offer or otherwise exclude the public, the public is entitled to assume the offer remains open."

(Hays v Vanek (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 273)

Back to Index

"Under the Subdivision Map Act, words of dedication on a map are treated merely as an offer and that the dedication is not completed until the offer is accepted by the city."

(DiMartino v City of Orinda (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 342)

Back to Index

Map dedication of real property for public improvement not accepted if...

(Code of Civil Procedure section 771.010)

Back to Index

Dedication of Highway

under Subdivision Map Act of 1907

(Ratchford v County of Sonoma (1972) 22 C.A.3d 1060)

Back to Index

Dedication of Open Space

(Associated Home Builders v Walnut Creek (1971) 4 C.3d 633)

Back to Index

Deed

"It is well settled that a deed indefinite in its terms may be made certain by the conduct of the parties acting under it."

(City of Manhattan Beach v Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 246)

(People v Ocean Shore Railroad (1948) 32 Cal.2d 406)

Back to Index

"The court cannot depart from the language of the parties in construing the deed....The intentions of the parties must govern,

and the entire description contained in the deed should be resorted to for their discovery."

(Currier v Nelson (1892) 96 Cal. 506)

(Hicks v Coleman, 25 Cal. 122)

Back to Index

"It is well settled that where a deed refers to a map or other instrument with a reference sufficiently certain to identify it, that instrument is regarded as incorporated in the deed as part of it."

(Calvi v Bittner (1961) 198 Cal.App.2d 312)

Back to Index

"I, John of Gaunt, Do give and do grant, To Sir John Burgoyne, And the heirs of his loin, Both Sutton and Potton, Till the world goes rotten."

(City of Manhattan Beach v Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 249)

Back to Index

"...if there is to be consistency in the establishment of property lines and property rights, deeds or agreements executed with reference to established monuments which can be ascertained on the ground, must control."

(Link v Cole Investment Co. (1962) 199 C.A.2d 186)

Back to Index

"...each grantor, by signing a deed containing an identical description and thereby establishing the boundary of the highway and designating a common section corner at each end of the section line with reference to fixed monuments, agreed that the highway boundary and the section line were established according to the description in the deeds."

(Link v Cole Investment Co. (1962) 199 C.A.2d 186)

Back to Index

Deeds, Rules of Interpretation

"With deeds, as with any other contracts, the primary object of all interpretation is to ascertain and carry out the intention of the parties."

(City of Manhattan Beach v Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 233)

Back to Index

"Extrinsic evidence is admissable to interpret the instrument, but not to give it a meaning to which it is not susceptible, and it is the instrument itself that must be given effect."

(City of Manhattan Beach v Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 262)

Back to Index

"...a grant is to be interpreted in favor of the grantee."

(City of Manhattan Beach v Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 245)

Back to Index

"Interpretation of a deed ordinarily is a question of law that we undertake de novo."

(City of Manhattan Beach v Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 252)

Back to Index

De Facto Taking

"In de facto taking cases, the landowner claims that because of particularly oppressive acts by the public authority the 'taking' actually occurred earlier than the date set by statute..."

(Klopping v City of Whittier (1972) 8 Cal.3d 39)

(People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v Diversified Properties Co. III (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 429)

Back to Index

Descriptions

"This is a case where the descriptions as written must yield to the monument stakes set before the descriptions were written.  They control the descriptions and fix the location on the ground of the rights of way described in the grant."

(Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v Minnette (1953) 115 C.A.2d 704)

Back to Index

"A description of real property is generally sufficient which enables the identity of the premises to be established, or which furnishes the means of designating the property sought to be conveyed."

(Daluiso v Boone (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 253)

Back to Index

"...if a competent surveyor can take the description and locate the land on the ground, with or without the aid of extrinsic evidence, the description is sufficient."

(Daluiso v Boone (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 253)

(Ganiats Construction, Inc. v Hesse (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d 377)

Back to Index

Some unusual examples of

(Calvi v Bittner (1961) 198 Cal.App.2d 312)

Back to Index

Development

Defined

(Public Resources Code Section 30106)

Back to Index

"We conclude the lot line adjustments in this case constituted development within the meaning of the (Coastal) act, therefore, the (Coastal) commission had permit jurisdiction."

(La Fe, Inc v County of Los Angeles (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 239)

Back to Index

Di

Dictionaries

Duhaime's Law Dictionary

Webster's

Back to Index

Direction

"Where a direction is given, a due direction is presumed, unless controlled by the deed."

(Bosworth v Danzien () 25 Cal. 296)

(Fratt v Woodward (1867) 32 Cal. 223)

Back to Index

Directory Calls

"...being those which merely direct the neighborhood where the different calls may be found..."

(Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., 1979, pg. 847)

Back to Index

Distances

"Recorded distances are the less persuasive elements of a survey and must yield to known natural monuments."

(Chandler v Hibberd (1958) 165 C.A.2d 58)

Back to Index

Double Proportionate Measurement

(Reid v Dunn (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 612)

Back to Index

Due North

"...a "due north" call should be surveyed on an astronomical basis."

(Richfield Oil Corp. v Crawford (1952) 39 C.2d 742)

(Fratt v Woodward (1867) 32 Cal. 219)

Back to Index

"Richfield and amicus curiae California Land Title Association assert that the interpretation adopted by the trial court and affirmed in this decision will cloud titles and upset settled boundaries throughout the state.  These fears are groundless.  Our decision does not add anything to rules of law established in California as early as 1858.  (Jenny Lind Co. v Bower & Co., 11 Cal. 194)"

(Richfield Oil Corp. v Crawford (1952) 39 C.2d 744)

Back to Index

Due Process

"...due process requires notice and an opportunity for a hearing..."

(Beck Development Co. v Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1162)

Back to Index

E

Earthquakes

"The Cullen Earthquake Act...specifies procedures for the reestablishment of boundaries changed by earthquakes and other disasters."

(Summary of California Law, B.E. Witkin, Vol. 3, 1973, pg. 1857)

(Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 751.50 et seq.)

Back to Index

Easement

"An easement involves primarily the privilege of doing a certain act on, or to the detriment of, another's property.  It is a restricted right to specific, limited, definable use or activity upon another's property, which right must be less than the right of ownership."

(Mesnick v Caton (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1252)

Back to Index

"...an express or implied grant of an easement carries with it certain secondary easements essential to its enjoyment, such as the right to make repairs, renewals, and replacements."

(Ward v City of Monrovia (1940) 16 C.2d 821-822)

Back to Index

"The character of use determines an easement's scope."

(Pipkin v Der Torosian (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 722)

Back to Index

Easement by Adverse Possession

"The same elements required to establish title by adverse possession of realty are necessary to acquire an easement by adverse possession except payment of taxes in the latter case need be shown only when the easement is separately assessed."

(Balestrieri v Sullivan (1956) 142 C.A.2d 341-342)

(Hahn v Curtis, 73 Cal.App.2d 382)

Back to Index

Easement by Implication

"In order for an easement to arise by implication, it must be both apparent and continuous, or obvious and permanent."

(Swarzwald v Cooley (1940) 39 C.A.2d 324)

Back to Index

"The owner of an easement by implication may acquire the underlying fee by adverse possession..."

(Southern Pac. Co. v City & County of S. F. (1964) 62 C.2d 50)

Back to Index

Easement by Necessity

"A right of way by necessity can only be claimed and held where it furnishes the only way by which access may be had to the property of the claimant."

(Lapique v Morrison (1915) 29 Cal.App. 136)

Back to Index

Easterly

"The word "easterly", when used alone, will be construed to mean due east, but when other words are used for the purpose of qualifying its meaning, it means precisely what the qualifying words make it mean."

(Fratt v Woodward (1867) 32 Cal. 219)

Back to Index

Eminent Domain

Eminent Domain Guide

"Any owner of real property may acquire by eminent domain an appurtenant easement to provide utility service to the owner's property."

(Civil Code Sec. 1001 (b))

Back to Index

(People v Ricciardi (1943) 23 C.2d 390)

Back to Index

(People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v Diversified Properties Co. III (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 429)

Back to Index

En

Encroachment

"Putting a building on plaintiff electric company's right of way within 4 feet of plaintiff's transmission lines constitutes an encroachment on plaintiff's rights."

(Pacific Gas & Elec. Co . v Minnette (1953) 115 C.A.2d 699)

Back to Index

Environmental Impact Report (EIR)

(City of Rancho Palos Verdes v City Council (1976) 59 C.A.3d 869)

Back to Index

Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA)

Defined

(Public Resources Code Section 30107.5)

Back to Index

Eq

Equal Area

"...by dividing Lot...into portions of equal area by means of a line drawn parallel to the outside boundary of the first parcel conveyed,,,"

(Bryant v Blevins (1994) 9 Cal.App.4th 52)

Back to Index

Equal Footing Doctrine

"Under the equal-footing doctrine 'the new States since admitted have the same rights, sovereignty and jurisdiction...as the original States possess within their respective borders.'"

(State Land Board v Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co. (1977) 429 U.S. 363)

(State of California ex rel. State Lands Commission v Superior Court of Sacramento County (1995) 11 Cal.4th 74)

Back to Index

"...title to lands beneath navigable waters passed from the Federal Government to the new States, upon their admission to the Union..."

(Bonelli Cattle Co. v Arizona (1973) 414 U.S. 313)

Back to Index

"The equal-footing doctrine was never intended to provide a State with a windfall of thousands of acres of dry land exposed when the main thread of a navigable stream is changed."

(Bonelli Cattle Co. v Arizona (1973) 414 U.S. 313)

Back to Index

Equal Protection Clause

"Under our state and federal 'equal protection' provisions a statute may single out a class for distinctive treatment only if such classification bears a rational relation to the purposes of the legislation."

(Brown v Merlo ( ) 8 Cal.3d 855)

(People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v Diversified Properties Co. III (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 429)

Back to Index

Equitable Estoppel

"The effect of voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is precluded from asserting rights against another who has justifiably relied upon such conduct and

changed his position so that he will suffer injury if the former is allowed to repudiate the conduct."

(Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., 1979, pg. 483)

Back to Index

"...the courts in California and other jurisdictions have proceeded with considerable caution and restraint when the effect of raising an estoppel would be to take the title to land from one person and vest it in another, for such a result would be essentially contrary to the intent and purpose, if not the letter, of the statute of frauds."

(City of Long Beach v Mansell (1970) 3 Cal.3d 462)

Back to Index

"To the application of this principle with respect to the title of property, it must appear, first, that the party making the admission by his declarations or conduct, was apprised of the true state of his own title; second, that he made the admission with the express intention to deceive, or with such careless and culpable negligence as to amount to constructive fraud; third, that the other party was not only destitute of all knowledge of the true state of the title, but of the means of acquiring such knowledge, and, fourth, that he relied directly upon such admission, and will be injured by allowing its truth to be disproved."

(Biddle Boggs v Merced Mining Co. (1859) 14 Cal. 279)

(City of Long Beach v Mansell (1970) 3 Cal.3d 462)

Back to Index

"...the elements required before applying the doctrine of equitable estoppel against the public body..."

(Brumbaugh v County of Imperial (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 564)

Back to Index

"Equitable estoppel is available against the government where justice and right require it."

(Palo Alto Inv. Co. v County of Placer (1969) 269 C.A.2d 363)

Back to Index

"...this case presents one of those exceptional conditions in which estoppel against a governmental agency is justified and should be applied."

(City of Imperial Beach v Algert (1962) 200 C.A.2d 53)

Back to Index

Escondido

Municipal Code

Back to Index

Escrow

"The intention of the parties as expressed in their escrow agreement was material to a determination of their intention at the time of the execution of the deed."

(City of Redlands v Nickerson (1961) 188 Cal.App2d 118)

Back to Index

Estoppel

"...when owners of adjoining lands have acquiesced for a considerable time, at least equal to the period prescribed by the statute of limitations, in the location of a division line between their lands, although it may not be the true line according to the calls of their deeds, they are thereafter precluded from saying it is not the true line."

(Link v Cole Investment Co. (1962) 199 C.A.2d 187)

Back to Index

"An owner is presumed to know the boundaries and area of his property.  Thus a purchaser of a portion of land may properly rely on the owner's representations as to its boundaries... .  If these representations are false, and the grantee relies upon them to his detriment,  both the grantor and his successors in interest are estopped from asserting any boundary inconsistent with the grantor's representations."

(Humphrey v Futter (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 339)

(3 Miller & Starr, Current Law of Cal. Real Estate (1977 ed.) pp. 563-564)

Back to Index

"The city, having permitted the appellants and other property-owners to build to the line claimed by appellants, and having continuously collected street assessments and taxes to conform thereto, is estopped from claiming any other line as the line of the street."

(Hellman v City of Los Angeles (1899) 125 Cal. 384)

Back to Index

"Where the owner stands by and sees valuable improvements made on his land, without giving notice of his title, he will be estopped from setting up his title against the occupant."

(Ferris v Coover (1858) 10 Cal. 606)

Back to Index

"Where facts themselves constituting estoppel appear in the pleadings, estoppel is adequately pleaded."

(Anderson v City of La Mesa (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 657)

Back to Index

Evidence

"Substantial evidence is not any evidence, but substantial proof of the essentials which the law requires in a given case.  Substantial evidence has ponderable legal significance, is reasonable, credible and of solid value."

(Buckley v California Coastal Com. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 473-474)

Back to Index

"Maps as well as field notes are evidence."

(Hanes v Hollow Tree Lumber Co. (1961) 191 C.A.2d 663)

Back to Index

"...the taking of evidence is the province of the trial court..."

(County of Colusa v Charter (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 268)

Back to Index

Exception

"...an exception limits the extent of the interest or estate conveyed, keeping the whole prior estate or interest in the grantor..."

(City of Manhattan Beach v Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 259)

Back to Index

"In accordance with the doctrine that an exception in such a deed is to be construed strictly against the grantor, the exception will fail and not the grant."

(Calvi v Bittner (1961) 198 Cal.App.2d 312)

Back to Index

"...whether a particular provision in a deed is an exception or a reservation is not conclusively determined by the use of the terms alone but depends on the real intention of the parties as ascertained from the whole conveyance."

(Main v Legnitto (1964) 230 C.A.2d 668)

Back to Index

Excess or Deficiency

"...in the absence of any agreement or question of title by adverse possession, shortage in a block which has been platted into lots will be prorated among the several lots."

(Brumley v Hall (1952) 110 C.A.2d 639)

Back to Index

Exclusive Easement

Back to Index

Existent Corner

(Reid v Dunn (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 614)

Back to Index

Expert Witness

"It is, of course, for the trier of fact to determine the weight to be given to the opinion of an expert witness."

(People v Hecker (1960) 179 Cal.App.2d 827)  (City of Carlsbad v Wight (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 756)

(People v Loop, 127 Cal.App.2d 786)  (Gentleman v Nadell & Co., 197 Cal.App2d 545)

Back to Index

Extrinsic Evidence

"...if the language of a conveyance unambiguously states the nature of the interest conveyed, there is no need to turn to extrinsic evidence bearing on that question."

(City of Manhattan Beach v Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 262)

Back to Index

"Extrinsic evidence is admissable to interpret the instrument, but not to give it a meaning to which it is not susceptible, and it is the instrument itself that must be given effect."

(City of Manhattan Beach v Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 262)

Back to Index

F

Fair Market Value

"...the highest price on the date of valuation that would be agreed to by a seller, being willing to sell but under no particular or urgent necessity for so doing, nor obliged to sell, and a buyer, being ready, willing, and able to buy but under no particular necessity for so doing, each dealing with the other with full knowledge of all the uses and purposes for which the property is reasonably adaptable and available."

(CCP 1263.310)

(City of San Diego v Neumann (1993) 6 Cal.4th 738)

Back to Index

Federal Homestead Law

(Hays v Vanek (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 277)

Back to Index

Federal Law

"Where title is deraigned from the United States, the question as to the extent of the grant is to be governed by federal and not by state law..."

(Carpenter v City of Santa Monica (1944) 63 C.A.2d 772)

Back to Index

"In Hughes v. Washington, 389 U.S. 290 (1967), this Court held that where an upland property owner traced its title to a pre-statehood federal patent, the owner's right to accetions is a question of federal law."

(Bonelli Cattle Co. v Arizona (1973) 414 U.S. 313)

Back to Index

"After California became a part of the United States in 1848 all of its public lands-those not encompassed by the boundaries of a pueblo or a Spanish or Mexican land grant-were surveyed utilizing the system prescribed by the federal survey law."

(John Taft Corp. v Advisory Agency (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 754)

Back to Index

Fee

"The owner of land in fee has the right to the surface and to everything permanently situated beneath or above it."

(Civil Code Sec. 829)

Back to Index

Fence

"A fence...is not the type of substantial structure from which an agreement to accept an agreed boundary reasonably may be inferred..."

(Bryant v Blevins (1994) 9 Cal.App.4th 49)

Back to Index

"...proof of acquiescence in the existence of a fence without evidence of an agreement to take the fence as a boundary is not sufficient to establish an agreed boundary."

(Armitage v Decker (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 900)  (Chandler v Hibberd (1958) 165 C.A.2d 42 )

(Drew v Mumford (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 271)

Back to Index

"Of significance is the fact that the laws pertaining to the question as to whether the owner of cattle must fence his cattle in or whether his neighbors must protect themselves by fencing the cattle out have been uncertain and in a state of flux over the periods involved, thus raising a substantial question as to the purpose of the fence."

(Finley v Yuba County Water Dist. (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 700)

Back to Index

Field Notes

"...as the certified copy (of the field notes) was competent evidence, we cannot see how the appellant could have been hurt in any way by the exclusion of the original."

(Harrington v Boehmer (1901) 134 Cal. 200)

Back to Index

"The line as surveyed and described in the field notes is the description by which the government sells its land.  ...the parties must take according to the calls of their patents."

(County of Yolo v Nolan (1904) 144 Cal. 445)

(State of California v Thompson (1971) 22 C.A.3d 377)

Back to Index

"Since the marks of the government survey are obliterated and the corner cannot be located by witnesses or by reference to identified monuments, the measurements indicated in the field note should be followed..."

(Luginbuhl v Hammond (1960) 179 C.A.2d 355)

Back to Index

"...in case there are two lines of monuments...so located as to render it doubtful which is the true line of government monuments, then, ...the monuments...most nearly conforming to the field-notes would ...be considered to be, the true government corner..."

(Hubbard v Dusy (1889) Cal. 284)   (Carter v Bank of America (1945) 69 Cal.App.2d 112)

Back to Index

"...if it be shown that a discrepancy exists between the map and the survey upon which it is based, the latter must prevail."

(Whiting v Gardner (1889) 80 Cal. 80)

(O'Farrel v Harney, 51 Cal. 125)

Back to Index

"...In case of a discrepancy between field notes and a plat, the plat must give way to the field notes..."

(Swarzwald v Cooley (1940) 39 C.A.2d 324)

Back to Index

"There is a presumption that a government surveyor's notes are correct and that he did what he said he did, and in the absence of preponderant evidence to the contrary, this presumption is enough to support a finding with respect to a boundary."

(Chandler v Hibberd (1958) 165 C.A.2d 42 )

Back to Index

"Where a deed by the owner of a Mexican grant called for its northwestern boundary,...but there was a mistake in the field-notes of the survey...held that it was the real intention of the grantor and grantee that the actual northwestern boundary of the rancho (as monumented) should be the ...boundary..."

(Orena v Newlove (1908) 153 Cal. 136)

Back to Index

Fifth Amendment

"...prohibition against taking private property for public use without just compensation."

(Nollan v California Coastal Comm'n (1987) 483 US 825, 97 L.Ed.2d 681)

Back to Index

Final Judgment

"...is defined as when all possible direct attack by appeal, motion for new trial, or motion to vacate has been exhausted."

(Code of Civil Procedure section 1235.120)

(People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v Union Pacific Land Resources Corp. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 307)

Back to Index

Final Maps

County of San Diego

Back to Index

Fire-Engine Lot

"The reservation of an engine lot...being a reservation for a public use...could not (be acquired) by mere adverse possession...'

(City and County of San Francisco v Bradbury (1891) 92 Cal. 414)

Back to Index

Follow in the Footsteps of the Original Government Surveyor

"The field-notes should be taken, and from the courses and distances, natural monuments or objects, and living trees described therein, the surveyor should endeavor to fix the line precisely as it is called for by the field-notes.  He should endeavor to retrace the steps of the man who made the original survey.  If by so doing the line can be located, it must be done, and, when so located, it must control."

(Lillis v Urrutia (1908) 9 Cal.App. 560)  (Saunders v Polich (1967) 250 C.A.2d 140)

(Yolo County v Nolan, 144 Cal. 448)  

Back to Index

"In attempting to trace the description on the ground, the court should follow the footsteps of the surveyor rather than to take the reverse course."

(Birk v Hodgkins (1911) 159 Cal. 576)

Back to Index

"Although respondent contends that Larson ought to have commenced his survey from the east in order to literally "follow in the footsteps" of Woods, this argument is without merit.  A survey from the nearest established corner is least liable to error."

(State of California v Thompson (1971) 22 C.A.3d 379)

Back to Index

"It must be held that Cummins was not employed to, and he did not, establish any legal boundary.  He did not purport to follow in the footsteps of the original government srveyors."

(Hanes v Hollow Tree Lumber Co. (1961) 191 C.A.2d 663)

Back to Index

Forfeiture

(People v Parcel No. 056-500-09 (1997) 58 Cal.App4th 120)

Back to Index

Four corners of the instrument

(City of Manhattan Beach v Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 232)

Back to Index

Fourteenth Amendment

"...the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as incorporated against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment."

(Nollan v California Coastal Comm'n (1987) 483 US 825, 97 L.Ed.2d 682)

Back to Index

Fr

Freeholders' Charter of San Diego (adopted in 1889)

(Richert v City of San Diego (1930) 109 Cal.App.548)

Back to Index

Freeway

"Freeway is a highway in respect to which the owners of abutting lands have no right or easement of access to or from their abutting lands..."

(Vehicle Code Section 332)

Back to Index

Fremont

(Ferris v Coover (1858) 10 Cal. 596-597, 599)

Back to Index

French grant

(City of New Orleans v Paine (1893) 147 U.S. 261)

Back to Index

Future Right of Way

(People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v Diversified Properties Co. III (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 429)

Back to Index

G

Gap

"The construction must be against making gap in a boundary not likely to have been contemplated by the parties."

(Orena v Newlove (1908) 153 Cal. 138)

(Piercy v Crandall, 34 Cal. 334)

Back to Index

Gated Enclaves

"...the use of highways for purposes of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental right, of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived..."

(Citizens Against Gated Enclaves v Whitley Heights Civic Assn. (1994) 23 Cal.App4th 812)

Back to Index

General Plan

"Neither Klopping nor any other decision of which we are aware holds that the enactment of a general plan for the future development of an area, indicating potential public use of privately owned land, amounts to an inverse condemnation of that land."

(Selby Realty Co. v City of San Buenaventura, 10 Cal.3d 110)

(Helix Land Co. v City of San Diego (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 932)

Back to Index

"The adoption of a general plan was said to be several leagues short of a firm declaration of an intention to condemn property."

(Selby Realty Co. v City of San Buenaventura, 10 Cal.3d 119)

Back to Index

General Statutes

"General Statutes of the State of California Continued in Force (1873)

(County of Colusa v Charter (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 264)

Gi

Glossary

DeBruyn-Smith Consulting Real Estate Glossary

Gov

Government Survey

"A survey of public lands does not merely ascertain boundaries; it creates them.  Thus, a government township lies just where the government surveyor lines it out on the face of the earth."

(State of California v Thompson (1971) 22 C.A.3d 369)

Back to Index

"...the official survey creates corners and boundaries and cannot be impeached by proof of negligence, mistake or even fraud on the part of the government surveyor."

(Chandler v Hibberd (1958) 165 C.A.2d 57)

Back to Index

"No government survey is complete or official until approved by the head of the bureau."

(Chandler v Hibberd (1958) 165 C.A.2d 64)

Back to Index

"...the government survey cannot be impeached by proof of fraud, negligence or mistake on the part of the government surveyor."

(Hanes v Hollow Tree Lumber Co. (1961) 191 C.A.2d 661)

Back to Index

"...the government may make as many surveys as it desires, the last official survey before patent governs...such is the case only so long as the lands are unpatented or unconveyed or otherwise have not passed into private ownership"

(Larson v Larson (1949) 89 C.A.2d 848)

Back to Index

"The recordation of United States Government Surveys by the Department of Interior is provided for by section 751 of title 43 of the United States Code.  The statute, however, does not provide for constructive notice."

(John Taft Corp. v Advisory Agency (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 756)

(United States Code, Title 43, section 751)

Back to Index

"We here determine that the United States Government Survey Maps prepared and recorded pursuant to federal law do not constitute subdivisions of land within the meaning of the California Subdivision Map Act."

(John Taft Corp. v Advisory Agency (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 751)

Back to Index

"...it is the federal government survey which is conclusive."

(Saunders v Polich (1967) 250 C.A.2d 142)  (Reid v Dunn (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 612)

Gp

Grading Plans

San Diego County Improvement Plan Processing

Back to Index

Grant

"...a legal conclusion drawn [decades later] is not compelling evidence of what was intended by a grant made [at the turn of the century] particularly since the original grantor took no part in the subsequent proceedings."

(City of Manhattan Beach v Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 249)

Back to Index

"Where there is a conflict between the surveyed exterior boundaries of a Mexican grant and a subsequent government survey the grant survey must prevail."

(Blackburn v Nelson (1893) 100 Cal. 336)

Back to Index

"A private grant is to be interpreted in favor of the grantee...A grant from the sovereign is to be interpreted in favor of the grantor..."

(Freeman v Bellegarde (1895) 108 Cal. 184-185)

Back to Index

Grant Boundary Adjustment

1973 BLM Manual of Surveying Instructions, pg. 142, 143

Back to Index

A different method of re-establishing a lost rancho corner (by record course and distance only)

(Blackburn v Nelson (1893) 100 Cal. 336)

Back to Index

Granting Clause

"...when the granting clause of a deed declares the purpose of the grant to be a right of way for a railroad the deed passes an easement only, and not a fee with a restricted use, even though the deed is in the usual form to convey a fee title."

(City of Manhattan Beach v Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 232)

Back to Index

Groundwater

"..."groundwater" is not a word with fixed meaning under California law and it is sometimes used simply to refer to any water which is under rather than upon the ground."

(Beck Development Co. v Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1211)

Back to Index

H  

Habendum Clause 

"To have and to hold all and singular the rights aforesaid unto [the railway] and its assigns and successors forever, subject however to and upon the terms and conditions aforesaid."

(City of Manhattan Beach v Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 236-237)

Back to Index

Half

"...by dividing Lot...into portions of equal area by means of a line drawn parallel to the outside boundary of the first parcel conveyed,,,"

(Bryant v Blevins (1994) 9 Cal.App.4th 52)

Back to Index

"The words 'east half' and 'west half' in a deed, while naturally importing equal division, may lose that effect when it appears that at the time some fixed line or known boundary or monument divides the premises somewhere near the center..."

(Bryant v Blevins (1994) 9 Cal.App.4th 58)

Back to Index

John C. Hays

 First surveyed and platted Rancho Canada de los Alisos in 1858

(Glenn v Cook (1952) 108 Cal.App.2d 784)

Back to Index

Hazardous Waste

"A landowner must be accorded full due process safeguards before their use of their property is restricted by a hazardous waste designation."

(Beck Development Co. v Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1162)

Back to Index

Heir Hunters

(City of Manhattan Beach v Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 232)

Back to Index

High Tide, Line of Ordinary

"Where there is no evidence tending to prove that there has been a change in the location of the line of mean high tide, it is presumed that no change has occurred within many years."

(Swarzwald v Cooley (1940) 39 C.A.2d 316)

(Hunt v Barker, 27 Cal.App, 776)

Back to Index

High-Water Mark

Federal Law

"...federal cases hold that the mean of all high tides must be included."

(Carpenter v City of Santa Monica (1944) 63 C.A.2d 786)

Back to Index

State Law

"California has held that this phrase limits the boundary to the mean of the neap tides..."

(Carpenter v City of Santa Monica (1944) 63 C.A.2d 786)

Back to Index

"The high-water mark of a river does not vary with the season, but is defined as the place where the river bed ends and the riverbank begins.  This method involves examining the riverbank to find the highest point where the water's flows have prevented the growth of vegetation."

(Bess v County of Humboldt (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1545, 1549)

(Fogerty v State of California (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 224)

(Lyon v Western Title Ins. Co. (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 1191)

Back to Index

"...the average height of the high waters at a particular place determined over a long period of time..."

(Summary of California Law, B.E. Witkin, Vol. 3, 1973, pg. 1855)

(People v Wm. Kent Estate Co. (1966) 242 C.A.2d 156)

Back to Index

Line of ordinary high tide

(Swarzwald v Cooley (1940) 39 C.A.2d 310)

Back to Index

Highway

"Where land is conveyed by a deed describing the property...to be bounded by a street or highway...the highway is a monument, and in legal contemplation the thread of the highway is the monument, unless a contrary intention clearly appears."

(Main v Legnitto (1964) 230 C.A.2d 667)

Back to Index

Highway Right-of-Way

(Link v Cole Investment Co. (1962) 199 C.A.2d 180)

Back to Index

Highways

"...the use of highways for purposes of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental right, of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived..."

(City of Lafayette v County of Contra Costa, 91 Cal.App.3d 749)

(Citizens Against Gated Enclaves v Whitley Heights Civic Assn. (1994) 23 Cal.App4th 812)

Back to Index

Historical Usage

County's right-of-way is limited to the historic usage of the road.

(County of Colusa v Charter (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 260)

Back to Index

Historic Bays

"...those over which a nation has traditionally asserted and maintained dominion..."

(United States v California (1965) 381 U.S. 139)

Back to Index

History

 The History of San Francisco Land Titles

(Laurel Hill Cemetery Assn. v All Persons (1945) 69 Cal.App.2d 190)

Back to Index

Hydraulic Mining

"...hydraulic mining does not make otherwise natural accretion artificial."

(State of California ex rel. State Lands Commission v Superior Court of Sacramento County (1995) 11 Cal.4th 77)

Back to Index

I

Impairment of Access

"...each impairment-of-access case is decided on the particular fact situation presented, with little reliance placed on judicial precedent.  Among the court decisions can be found authority in favor of or against compensability on virtually any set of facts."

(San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Bd. v Price Co. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1550)

Back to Index

Implied Dedication

Civil Code Sec. 1009(b) "Regardless of whether or not a private owner of real property has recorded a notice of consent to use... or has posted signs on such property pursuant to Section 1008 of the Civil Code..., no use of such property by the public after the effective date of this section shall ever ripen to confer upon the public or any governmental body or unit a vested right to continue to make such use permanently, in the absence of an express written irrevocable offer of dedication of such property to such use... ."

Back to Index

After 1971, "...an implied dedication does not arise simply because of permissive use."

(Bess v County of Humboldt (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1550)

(Civil Code Sections 813 and 1009)

Back to Index

"If a trial court finds that the public has used land without objection or interference for more than five years, it need not make a separate finding of "adversity" to support a decision of implied dedication."

(Bess v County of Humboldt (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1550)  (Brumbaugh v County of Imperial (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 562)

Back to Index

Implied-in-Fact Dedication

"...requires a clear and unequivocal offer by the owner to dedicate the road to a public use and an acceptance of the offer by the public."

(Hays v Vanek (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 272)  (Brumbaugh v County of Imperial (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 562)

Back to Index

Implied-in-Law Dedication

"...shifts the focus of inquiry from the intent of the owner to the activities of the public."

(Hays v Vanek (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 272)   (Brumbaugh v County of Imperial (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 562)

Back to Index

Improvement Plans

County of San Diego

Back to Index

Improvements

"In the absence of better evidence, the court might have been warranted in finding for appellants on the evidence as to the south boundary of Fourth street as it had been indicated on the ground by the line of fence and other improvements for twenty-five years."

(Hellman v City of Los Angeles (1899) 125 Cal. 387)

Back to Index

Inaccurate Survey

"It needs no argument to show the impossibility of locating an unknown line of an inaccurate survey by running from a known line of the same survey."

(Hellman v City of Los Angeles (1899) 125 Cal. 387)

Back to Index

Incidental Calls

"...it is settled that incidental calls to natural objects may be resorted to where the locative calls have disappeared."

(State of California v Thompson (1971) 22 C.A.3d 380)

(Weaver v Howatt (1915) 171 Cal. 302)

Back to Index

"...natural monuments must control over courses and distances.  This is not always true, especially where the reference to a natural monument is incidental, the same is at an intermediate point, and no clear intention appears to make such calls locative."

(Luginbuhl v Hammond (1960) 179 C.A.2d 355)

Back to Index

Injunction

"It is not an abuse of discretion to require defendants to remove their building from plaintiff electric company's right of way..."

(Pacific Gas & Elec. Co . v Minnette (1953) 115 C.A.2d 700)

Back to Index

Inland Waters

(United States v California (1965) 381 U.S. 139)

Back to Index

Instrument

"Miller and Starr, in their work on California real estate law, list 75 types of instruments which may be recorded."

(2 Miller & Starr, Current Law of Cal. Real Estate (1977) 18-30)

(Brown v Johnson (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 849)

Back to Index

Intent

"Both the legislative history of the statute and the wider historical circumstances of its enactment may be considered in ascertaining the legislative intent..."

(Buckley v California Coastal Com. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 470)

Back to Index

"This is but an application of the rule that when the meaning of the language of a contract is doubtful the acts of the parties done under it afford one of the most reliable clues to the intention of the parties."

(Pacific Gas & Elec. Co . v Minnette (1953) 115 C.A.2d 704)

Back to Index

Inter

Interpretations

"...all interpretations should be directed toward the ascertainment of the true intent of the parties."

(Main v Legnitto (1964) 230 C.A.2d 668)

Back to Index

Inverse Condemnation

"...inverse condemnation is an action to recover compensation for taking of property by means other than condemnation proceedings."

(Buckley v California Coastal Com. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 474)

Back to Index

"In an inverse condemnation action, the property owner has the burden of alleging and proving the owner's property right and its infringement."

(Buckley v California Coastal Com. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 463)

Back to Index

"...where there is no acceptance of a street or the drainage system within it, there is no public improvement, public work or public use and therefore there can be no public liability for inverse condemnation."

(DiMartino v City of Orinda (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 339)

(Yox v City of Whittier (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 347)

Back to Index

"Inverse condemnation liability will not lie for damage to private property allegedly caused by private development approved or authorized by the public entity, where the public entity's sole affirmative action was the issuance of permits and approval of the subdivision map."

(DiMartino v City of Orinda (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 339)

(Ullery v County of Contra Costa (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 562)

Back to Index

Inverse Condemnation Proceeding Costs

(Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 1036)

Back to Index

Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (IOD)

"The fact that the county board of supervisors rejected the offer of dedication was immaterial; use thereafter of the area as a street by the public constituted an acceptance and the dedication bacame irrevocable."

(Main v Legnitto (1964) 230 C.A.2d 668)

Back to Index

Islands

"Islands and accumulations of land, formed in the beds of streams which are navigable, belong to the State, if there is no title or prescription to the contrary."

(Civil Code Sec. 1016)

Back to Index

J

Judgment

"A purported description in a judgment affecting real property which is no description at all renders the judgment void."

(City of Redlands v Nickerson (1961) 188 Cal.App2d 118)

Back to Index

Jurisdiction

"...lack of jurisdiction is "an entire absence of power to hear or determine the case, an absence of authority over the subject matter or the parties.""

(Buckley v California Coastal Com. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 472)

Back to Index

Jury

"...the question whether there has been a substantial impairment of her property right is a question of law, or of fact, or a mixed question of law and fact, for the trial court to determine.  In no case is it a 'question of fact for the jury" to determine."

(People v Ricciardi (1943) 23 C.2d 405)

Back to Index

Just Compensation

"The full measure of "just compensation" includes the payment of interest at a fair and reasonable rate as reimbursement for lost use of money due as compensation for the property, but not paid contemporaneously with the taking."

(Redevelopment Agency v Gilmore (1985) 38 Cal.3d 790)

(People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v Diversified Properties Co. III (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 429)

Back to Index

"...Fifth Amendment prohibition against taking private property for public use without just compensation."

(Nollan v California Coastal Comm'n (1987) 483 US 825, 97 L.Ed.2d 681)

Back to Index

"Governments are prohibited from taking private property for public use without compensation (U.S. Const., 5th and 14th Amends.; Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 19)"

(Buckley v California Coastal Com. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 463)

Back to Index

K

Klopping Damages

"...Klopping damages are damages for the condemnee's loss of use or enjoyment of his adversely affected property occasioned during the precondemnation period by the condemnor's unreasonable conduct...This is why there is no duplication in damages in awarding a property owner both Klopping damages, on the one hand, and taking and severance damages on the other."

(City of Los Angeles v Monahan (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 846)

(Klopping v City of Whittier, 8 Cal.3d 39)

(People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v Diversified Properties Co. III (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 429)

Back to Index

"...when the condemner acts unreasonably in issuing precondemnation statements, either by excessively delaying eminent domain action or by other oppressive conduct, our constitutional concern over property rights requires that the owner be compensated."

(Klopping v City of Whittier, 8 Cal.3d 39, 51-52)

(County of San Diego v Miller (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 424)

Back to Index

L

Laguna Rancho

(Tognazzini v Morganti (1890) 84 Cal. 163)

Back to Index

Land

"References to "land", particularly in conjunction with precise and technical designation of the location, generally indicate an intention to transfer the entire estate not just a limited right to pass over the property."

(City of Manhattan Beach v Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 244)   (Moakley v Blog (1928) 90 Cal.App. 96)

(Krouser v San Bernardino (1947) 29 C.2d 766)

Back to Index

Land Registration Act

Torrens Act

(In re Dixon (1932) 120 Cal.App. 636)

Back to Index

Land Surveyors Act

California Business and Professions Code Sections 8700-8805

Back to Index

Land Use Planning

"...the authority of state and local governments to engage in land use planning has been sustained against constitutional challenge as long ago as our decision in Euclid v Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926)."

(Dolan v City of Tigard (1994) U.S.)

Back to Index

Land Use & Planning Law

Curtin's California Land Use & Planning Law ,1999 edition

Back to Index

Language

"...if the meaning of the language of an instrument is doubtful the court will look to the practical construction placed upon it by the parties."

(Gramer v City of Sacramento (1935) 2 Cal.2d 440)

Back to Index

Latent Construction Defects

"No action may be brought to recover damages from any person, or the surety of a person, who develops real property or performs or furnishes the design, specifications, surveying, planning, supervision, testing, or observation of construction or construction of an improvement to real property more than 10 years after the substantial completion of the development or improvement..."

(Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 337.15)

Back to Index

Law

California State Assembly Home Page

California State Senate

The Law Engine - Search Law

Search U.S. Federal Law

Search State Law - all 50 states

Back to Index

Law Dictionary

Duhaime's Law Dictionary

On-Line

Back to Index

Law Libraries

San Diego County Public Law Library

Back to Index

Le

Legal Description

"The law should prefer boundaries the legal description sets, or else it is hard to see why such records exist."

(Mesnick v Caton (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1256)

Back to Index

Legal Necessity

"The record in this case discloses that while plaintiff may have shown practical necessity, there is no showing of urgency, or extreme expediency, or legal necessity, or that the proposed taking is indispensable."

(City of Carlsbad v Wight (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 756)

Back to Index

Legal Subdivision

"We concur that the term "legal subdivision" as used in the federal survey law refers neither to a physical division of land nor to the allocation of a parcel to more than one owner.  The term there refers instead solely to a survey method adopted to facilitate the conveyance of public land to one or more owners by establishing the geographic location of the land on a descriptive map."

(John Taft Corp. v Advisory Agency (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 753)

Back to Index

Legislative Issues

ACSM

BoRPELS 1998 Legislative Digest

Cal/EPA 1999 Legislation

CEQA 1972-1999 Reported Court Decisions

NOAA

Back to Index

Licensure

State of California Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors

Back to Index

Line

"A line, as shown by monuments and as platted by the city authorities, and as acquiesced in for many years, cannot be overturned by measurements alone."

(Beall v Weir (1909) 11 Cal.App. 369)

(Kaiser v Dalto (1903) 140 Cal. 172)

Back to Index

Lines

"...curved lines are more beautiful than straight, and there is no reason why parties may not measure land by them..."

(Fratt v Woodward (1867) 32 Cal. 230)

Back to Index

Littoral Rights

"Rights concerning properties abutting an ocean, sea or lake rather than a river or stream (riparian)."

(Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., 1979, pg. 842)

Back to Index

"It is well settled that the littoral rights of an upland owner who owns no title to tidelands adjoining his property are subject to termination by whatever disposition of the tidelands the state, or its grantees, in the exercise of their trust, choose to make."

(L. A. Athletic Club v Santa Monica (1944) 63 C.A.2d 799)

Back to Index

"A littoral owner has been held to have the right to build a pier out to the line of navigability; a right to accretion; and a right of access from every part of his frontage across the foreshore."

(Marks v Whitney (1971) 6 Cal.3d 251)

Back to Index

Locative Calls

"In a deed, patent, or other instrument containing a description of land, locative calls are specific calls, descriptions, or marks of location, referring to landmarks, physical objects, or other points by which the land can be exactly located and identified...locative calls are those which serve to fix boundaries."

(Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., 1979, pg. 847)

Back to Index

Lord Dundreary

"If you had a brother would he like cheese?"

(City of San Diego v Neumann (1993) 6 Cal.4th 738)

Back to Index

Lost Corners

Chapter 5 of the 1973 BLM Manual of Surveying Instructions

Back to Index

"...the corner would not be treated as lost if there was some "acceptable evidence" of its original location."

(Reid v Dunn (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 614)

Back to Index

Coordinate Use in the Restoration of Lost and Obliterated Public Land Survey Corners

Back to Index

"After the establishment of a lost corner, as defined by the Manual of Instructions for the Survey of the Public Lands of the United States, a record of survey shall be filed as set forth in Section 8764."

(Business and Professions Code Sec. 8773 (b))

Back to Index

Lost Corner of a Mexican Grant

"The township of government land... was surveyed...long after the title to the rancho was settled...if any conflict arises between these...surveys the grant survey must prevail."

(Blackburn v Nelson (1893) 100 Cal. 336)

Back to Index

 Lot

Lot Line Adjustment

"Landowners' proposed adjustment of the lot lines between the parcels of land that they owned constituted development that fell within the permit jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission under the California Coastal Act of 1976."

(La Fe, Inc v County of Los Angeles (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 231)

Back to Index

"...lot line adjustments that do not increase the number of parcels are exempt from the Subdivision Map Act..."

(La Fe, Inc v County of Los Angeles (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 231)

Back to Index

"...a lot line adjustment is a form of a lot split."

(Landgate, Inc. v California Coastal Com. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1006)

Back to Index

Lots

"The term "lots" in its common and ordinary meaning includes that portion of the platted territory measured and set apart for individual and private use and occupancy."

(In re Dixon (1932) 120 Cal.App. 638)

Back to Index

"Where lots are sold by number and not by metes and bounds and reference is made to a registered map and plat which show that the property abuts on a street, highway, or railroad easement, the conveyance generally carries title to the center of the way."

(Millyard v Faus (1968) 268 C.A.2d 77)

Back to Index

"In determining the boundaries of city lots the lines as originally located on the surface must govern; and a line shown by monuments as platted by the city authorities and acquiesced in for many years must control courses and distances, and cannot be overturned by measurements alone."

(Kaiser v Dalto (1903) 140 Cal. 168)

Back to Index

"If the deed of a lot in a town, for a description of the lot, refers to the official map of the town plat, this reference does not prevent parol evidence from being received to show that the survey in the field from which the map was made conflicts with the map, for the purpose of arriving at the correct boundary of the lot."

(O'Farrel v Harney (1875) Sup.Ct. 125)

Back to Index

Lots and Blocks

"The lots and blocks of the city are located as they were marked on the ground.  These monuments control distance."

(O'Farrel v Harney (1875) Sup.Ct. 126)

Back to Index

M

Manual of Instructions

On-Line Version

Chapter 7 - Special Surveys and Instructions

Back to Index

Map

"An official map of a town plat which, by reference to monuments established, or by some other mode, refers to a survey, is presumed to correctly represent the survey as actually made; but if there is a discrepancy between the map and the survey in the field, the survey must prevail, if the position of the points and lines established by the survey can be proved."

(O'Farrel v Harney (1875) Sup.Ct. 125)

Back to Index

"...it was proper for the trial court to assume that the map was correct until evidence to the contrary was produced."

(Hoffman v Van Duzee (1937) 19 C.A. 517)

Back to Index

"If a man has really acquired title to land, he cannot afterward be mapped out of it by other persons."

(Payne v English (1889) 79 Cal. 547)

Back to Index

"The original owners, having filed the map, are bound thereby and all doubts as to the meaning of the map, and any conflict appearing upon its face, are to be construed most strongly against them."

(Larkey v City of Los Angeles (1925) 70 Cal.App. 641)

Back to Index

"...although maps showing the boundaries of lots are some evidence which may create a question of fact as to the true boundaries, such maps are not conclusive as to the legal boundaries."

(Lechuza Villas West v California Coastal Com. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 218)

Back to Index

Marginal Street Doctrine

"The grant of land adjoining a street or highway which has been made wholly from, and upon the margin of, the grantor's land is deemed to comprehend the fee in the whole of the street...the rule does not apply where the grantor's property is bisected by a street"

(City of Redlands v Nickerson (1961) 188 Cal.App2d 118)  (11 Corpus Juris Secundum 586)

Back to Index

Market Value

"...the highest price estimated in terms of money which the land would bring if exposed for sale in the open market..."

(People v Ricciardi (1943) 23 C.2d 401)

Back to Index

Me

Meander Lines

"...the meander line is not the limit of the land conveyed when the lands border upon a body of water, but that the shore line constitutes the true boundary."

(Anderson v Trotter (1931) 213 Cal. 424)

Back to Index

"The exceptions to the above rule include references to bodies of water which do not exist, and to tracts of land so large as to...indicate fraud..."

(Anderson v Trotter (1931) 213 Cal. 415)

Back to Index

"A meander line is not necessarily a boundary line but is for the purpose of defining the sinuosities of the banks of a stream and as a means of ascertaining the quantity of land embraced in a survey."

(People v Ward Redwood Co (1964) 225 C.A.2d 385)

Back to Index

Mean High Tide Line

"The "mean high tide" or "ordinary high tide" is a mean of all the high tides...over a period of 18.6 years."

(Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., 1979, pg. 884)

(Borax Consolidated v City of Los Angeles (1935) 296 U.S. 10)

Back to Index

"...is an ambulatory (not fixed) line formed by the intersection of the ordinary high tide plane and the shifting shoreline.  This is the law in California..."

(Lechuza Villas West v California Coastal Com. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 218)

Back to Index

Measurements

"When boundary is located a specific distance from a fixed object, experience shows that...measurements of that distance, made at various times by different persons with different instruments, will usually vary somewhat....  If the position of the line always remains to be ascertained by measurement alone, the result is that it is not a fixed boundary, but is subject to change with every new measurement.  Such uncertainty and instability in the title to land is intolerable."

(Bryant v Blevins (1994) 9 Cal.App.4th 64)  (Young v Blakeman (1908) 153 Cal. 477)

(Link v Cole Investment Co. (1962) 199 C.A.2d 186)

Back to Index

Merged

"If...these were separate contiguous parcels legally created prior to the effective date of the Map Act, they would not be deemed merged simply because they were held or acquired by a single owner, even if viewed as a single parcel by the County assessor."

(John Taft Corp. v Advisory Agency (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 753)

Back to Index

Mesne Conveyances

Back to Index

Metes and Bounds Descriptions

(See Merritt, Metes and Bounds Descriptions: A red flag forewarning possible Subdivision Map Act Violations (Cont.Ed.Bar 1990) 13 RealProp.L.Rep. 117)

Back to Index

"...The use of a metes and bounds description which does not include one-half of an adjoining street is one of the ways to rebut the

statutory presumption that the grantee takes the underlying fee to the center of the street."

(Hixson v Jones (1967) 253 C.A.2d 864)

(Speer v Blasker (1961) 195 C.A.2d 156)

Back to Index

"The use of a metes and bounds description in a deed, inserted by a title company on its own initiative to clarify a partial lot and block description, did not rebut the presumption that the grantee of land bounded by a highway takes title to the center of the highway."

(Hixson v Jones (1967) 253 C.A.2d 860)

Back to Index

Metes and Bounds Subdivisions

Before passage of the Subdivision Map Act of 1929 a "...developer could stake out a subdivision and sell lots by "metes and bounds" descriptions rather than by reference to a map."

(Hays v Vanek (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 288)

Back to Index

Mexican Grants

(Minturn v Brower (1864) 24 Cal. 644)

Back to Index

"...discussed at length the question as to what law governs federal patents confirming Mexican grants, and held that the state and not federal law governs."

(Los Angeles Farming & M. Co. v Los Angeles, 217 U.S. 217)

(Carpenter v City of Santa Monica (1944) 63 C.A.2d 785)

Middletown

(Cadwalader v Nash (1887) 73 Cal. 47)

Back to Index

William Minto

Surveyed part of Alisos Rancho in 1874

(Glenn v Cook (1952) 108 Cal.App.2d 784)

Back to Index

Surveyed part of Casmalia Rancho in ca. 1880

(Tognazzini v Morganti (1890) 84 Cal. 160)

Back to Index

Mistake

"The application of the doctrine of agreed boundary is not precluded by the fact that although it was the intent of the parties to set the boundary along the true section line, their failure to do so was merely the result of mistake."

(Martin v Lopes (1946) 28 Cal.2d 618)

(Humphrey v Futter (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 339)

Back to Index

Mon

Monterey

"The city of Monterey was incorporated by an act of the legislature of the state of California, March 30, 1850, and became thereby successor of the former pueblo to its pueblo lands."

(City of Monterey v Jacks (1906) 203 U.S. 360)

Back to Index

Monuments

"The monuments or marks placed upon the ground by the surveyor in making a survey, constitute the survey, and the courses and distances are only evidence of the survey.  Although evidence based upon courses and distances from other known points is admissible to fix a corner, where no corner is found, it is not admissible to change the location of an original corner of the survey when found."

(Gordon v Booker (1893) 97 Cal. 586)

Back to Index

"It is well established that the lines as actually run by the original government surveyor become the true boundary lines.  If these lines can be ascertained and determined by reason of monuments erected by the government surveyor, they will control, and courses, distances, measurements, plats, and field notes must all yield to such established monuments."

(Arnold v Hanson (1949) 91 C.A.2d 18)

Back to Index

"Monuments left by the United States survey on the ground are the best evidence as to where the land should be..."

(Lillis v Urrutia (1908) 9 Cal.App. 559)

Back to Index

"When land has once been conveyed with reference to stakes and monuments, which were fixed and in place at the time of such conveyance, the conveyance cannot be afterward defeated by a new survey which shows that the stakes and monuments as originally set were not as a matter of fact in their true place."

(Beall v Weir (1909) 11 C.A. 365)

(Link v Cole Investment Co. (1962) 199 C.A.2d 184)

Back to Index

"Where the owner of a larger tract conveys a parcel thereof that he has delineated on the ground by fixed monuments, and the parties rely on such monuments as establishing the intended boundaries, under the doctrine of practical location, the monuments will prevail over any differing description in the deed..."

(Kraus v Griswold (1965) 232 C.A.2d 700)

Back to Index

"When permanent and visible or ascertained boundaries or monuments are inconsistent with the measurement, either of lines, angles, or surfaces, the boundaries or monuments are paramount."

Code of Civil Procedure, Sec.2077(2)

(Chandler v Hibberd (1958) 165 C.A.2d 57)

Back to Index

"But before the rule can be applied, there must not only be monuments which will stand still, and not float or fly, but the place where the alleged monuments were at the time the conveyance was made must be satisfactorily located."

(Payne v English (1889) 79 Cal. 546)

Back to Index

"In the absence of any qualifying term, the designation in a conveyance of any physical object or monument as a boundary implies the middle or central point of such boundary."

(Freeman v Bellegarde (1895) 108 Cal. 179)

Back to Index

"The monument doctrine presumes an intent on the part of the grantor to grant to the middle of a monument...if the conveyance designates such object as a monument or boundary, but the mere abutting of property on a railway easement does not give rise to such a presumption."

(Millyard v Faus (1968) 268 C.A.2d 77)

Back to Index

"This is a case where the descriptions as written must yield to the monument stakes set before the descriptions were written.  They control the descriptions and fix the location on the ground of the rights of way described in the grant."

(Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v Minnette (1953) 115 C.A.2d 704)

Back to Index

"...in case there are two lines of monuments...so located as to render it doubtful which is the true line of government monuments, then, ...the monuments...most nearly conforming to the field-notes would ...be considered to be, the true government corner..."

(Hubbard v Dusy (1889) Cal. 284)   (Carter v Bank of America (1945) 69 Cal.App.2d 112)

Back to Index

More or Less

"...the words "more or less" show that the exact amount of acreage should not be the controlling factor and should yield to other more definite parts of the description."

(MacGregor v Knowlden (1929) 102 Cal.App. 42)

Back to Index

Municipal Codes

Carlsbad

Escondido

Imperial Beach

San Diego

Back to Index

Municipal Corporation

"Generally, a municipal corporation cannot exercise its powers beyond its corporate boundaries."

(City of Carlsbad v Wight (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 756)

Back to Index

"...when a city seeks to condemn land without" (outside) "its corporate limits, it devolves upon the courts to determine whether the taking of the particular land is necessary for the use."

(City of Carlsbad v Wight (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 756)

Back to Index

N  

Nation

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(United States Code Chapter 42, Sec. 4321)

Back to Index

Natural Monuments

"In determining the position of a tract of land from a description or survey, natural objects referred to as bounds prevail over the measurement of lines and angles."

(Curtis v Upton (1917) 175 Cal. 322)

(Hunt v Barker (1915) Cal.App. 776)

Back to Index

"...natural monuments must control over courses and distances.  This is not always true, especially where the reference to a natural monument is incidental, the same is at an intermediate point, and no clear intention appears to make such calls locative."

(Luginbuhl v Hammond (1960) 179 C.A.2d 355)

(Mendenhall v Paris, 84 Cal. 193)

(Goss v Golinsky, 12 Cal.App. 71)

Back to Index

"...The highest regard is had to natural boundaries..."

(Ferris v Coover (1858) 10 Cal. 611)

Back to Index

"...unless there is something in the instrument to the contrary, a deed of conveyance referring to natural objects and boundaries speaks as of the date of its execution."

(Devlin v Powell (1924) 67 Cal.App. 171)

Back to Index

"If he had in view this natural object, it is more reasonable to infer that he observed it from a remote point and guessed at its distance than that he actually located it by the survey."

(Hanes v Hollow Tree Lumber Co. (1961) 191 C.A.2d 663)

Back to Index

Navigable Waters

Can the State of California "Declare" the Rivers of Siskiyou County as Navigable?

Back to Index

"It is well settled that the state has fee title to such portions of any navigational river within its boundaries as lies beneath the low-water mark."

(Bess v County of Humboldt (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1549)

Back to Index

"...the States...title to the bed of a navigable river mechanically follows the river's gradual changes in course."

(Bonelli Cattle Co. v Arizona (1973) 414 U.S. 313)

Back to Index

"...tidal waters above the mean high tide line are not navigable waters."

(Lechuza Villas West v California Coastal Com. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 218)

Back to Index

"Indeed, navigability in California 'is largely a question of fact, to be determined from the character of the stream...and the other surrounding circumstances affecting the question."

(Heist v County of Colusa (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 850)

Back to Index

"...no grant of lands covered by navigable waters can be made which will impair the power of a subsequent Legislature to regulate enjoyment of the public right."

(Mallon v City of Long Beach (1955) 44 Cal.2d 199)

(City of Coronado v San Diego Unified Port District (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 455)

Back to Index

Navigational Servitudes

"In the exercise of its navigational servitude, the State or Federal Government may decrease the value of riparian property without compensation because the property is held subject to the exercise of that servitude."

(Bonelli Cattle Co. v Arizona (1973) 414 U.S. 313)

(Kaiser Aetna v United States (1979) 444 U.S. 164)

Back to Index

Ne

Necessity

Legal

Practical

Public

     "An exigency or expediency which justifies the taking of property for a public use."

(Ballentine's Law Dictionary, 3rd edition, 1969, pg. 1022)

Back to Index

New Helvetia

Grant of eleven square leagues to John A. Sutter

(Ferris v Coover (1858) 10 Cal. 589)

Back to Index

Nexus

"...what is the required degree of connection between the exactions imposed by the city and the projected impacts of the proposed development...No precise mathematical calculation is required, but the city must make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development."

(Dolan v City of Tigard (1994) U.S.)

Back to Index

"We resolved, however, that the Coastal Commission's regulatory authority was set completely adrift from its constitutional moorings when it claimed that a nexus existed between visual access to the ocean and a permit condition requiring lateral public access along the Nollan's beachfront lot."

(Nollan v California Coastal Comm'n (1987) 483 US 825, 97 L.Ed.2d 681)

(Dolan v City of Tigard (1994) U.S.)

Back to Index

(Rational-Nexus Constitutional Analysis of Development Exactions (1989) B.U.L.Rev. 823)

Back to Index

Non-navigable Waters

"A river need not be designated "nonnavigable" simply because it may be navigated only seasonally."

(Bess v County of Humboldt (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1545)

Back to Index

Non-tidal Navigable Waters

"...the owner of the upland, when it borders on a navigable lake or stream, where there is no tide, takes to the edge of the lake or stream, at low water mark.

(State of California v Superior Court (Lyon) (1981) 29 Cal.3d 211)

Back to Index

North

North

"Though the word "north", as used in the descriptive call of a deed, may be controlled or qualified in its meaning by other words of description used in connection with it, yet when it is not qualified or controlled by other words, it must be construed to mean due north."

(Currier v Nelson (1892) 96 Cal. 505, 508)  (Green v Palmer (1924) 68 Cal.App. 401)

(Fratt v Woodward (1867) 32 Cal. 219)

Back to Index

"...a "due north" call should be surveyed on an astronomical basis."

(Richfield Oil Corp. v Crawford (1952) 39 C.2d 742)

Back to Index

Northerly

"The term "northerly", when used in a grant or conveyance, unless controlled by monuments mentioned in the description, means due north."

(Bosworth v Danzien (1864) 25 Cal. 296)  (Chandler v Hibberd (1958) 165 C.A.2d 58)

(Currier v Nelson (1892) 96 Cal. 508)

Back to Index

North Island, San Diego, California

Condemnation of whole island

(United States v Coronado Beach Co. (1921) 255 U.S. 472)

Back to Index

Notice

Defined

(Civil Code Section 18)

Back to Index

Notice of Consent To Use

"Regardless of whether or not a private owner of real property has recorded a notice of consent to use... or has posted signs on such property pursuant to Section 1008 of the Civil Code..., no use of such property by the public after the effective date of this section shall ever ripen to confer upon the public or any governmental body or unit a vested right to continue to make such use permanently, in the absence of an express written irrevocable offer of dedication of such property to such use... ."

(Civil Code Sec. 1009(b) )

Back to Index

"These statutes, however, ...cannot affect any rights which vested prior to 1971"

(Bess v County of Humboldt (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1550)

Back to Index

Nuisance

Defined

(Civil Code Section 3479)

Back to Index

"...there is no single overriding test for determination whether a nuisance is permanent or continuing."

(Beck Development Co. v Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1222)

Back to Index

"...we note a prospective nuisance may be enjoined, yet facts must be alleged to show the danger is probable and imminent."

(Nicholson v Getchell, 96 Cal. 394)

(Helix Land Co. v City of San Diego (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 932)

Back to Index

O

Obliterated Corner

"The court pointed out that under section 355 of the Manual of Surveying Instructions, a corner was merely obliterated and not lost if its location had been perpetuated or the point for the corner could be recovered beyond reasonable doubt by the acts and testimony of interested landowners, competent surveyors, other qualified local authorities or witnesses."

(Reid v Dunn (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 612)

Back to Index

"An obliterated corner is one of which no visible evidence remains of the work of the original surveyor in establishing it but of which the location may be shown by competent evidence."

(Chandler v Hibberd (1958) 165 C.A.2d 41)

Back to Index

"...it is settled that incidental calls to natural objects may be resorted to where the locative calls have disappeared.  Certainly, they must be followed before resorting to the proportionate measurement method"

(State of California v Thompson (1971) 22 C.A.3d 380)

Back to Index

Occupancy

"Occupancy for any period confers a title sufficient against all except the state and those who have title by prescription, accession, transfer, will, or succession..."

(Civil Code Sec. 1006)

(Hart v Cox (1915) 171 C. 364)

Back to Index

Offer of Dedication

"Since 1937 the Subdivision Map Act has provided, "If at the time the final map is approved any streets are rejected, the offer of dedication shall...remain open..."

(Ratchford v County of Sonoma (1972) 22 C.A.3d 1072)

Back to Index

Ojai Rancho

(John Taft Corp. v Advisory Agency (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 754)

Back to Index

Option

"The holder of an unexercised option to purchase real property has no right to share in the award when that property has been condemned."

(County of San Diego v Miller (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 424)

Back to Index

Ordinance

"There is no presumption of the existence of an ordinance, at least in the absence of any proof.  Hence, one who claims that any particular ordinance is in force bearing on an issue on trial has the burden of proving it,..."

(County of Colusa v Charter (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 262)

Back to Index

Ordinary High Water Mark

"Ordinary high water mark is normal high water. It is the average level of the water attained by a river in its annual seasonal flow."

(People v Ward Redwood Co (1964) 225 C.A.2d 385)

Back to Index

"...ordinary high tide is determined by averaging high tides over a period of 18.6 years.

(Lechuza Villas West v California Coastal Com. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 218)

Back to Index

"The "mean high tide" or "ordinary high tide" is a mean of all the high tides...over a period of 18.6 years."

(Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., 1979, pg. 884)

Back to Index

Orestimba Rancho

(Orena v Newlove (1908) 153 Cal. 143)

Back to Index

Original Corner

"Evidence based upon courses and distances from other known points is admissible to fix a corner, where no corner is found, but never to change the location of an original corner when found."

(Gordon v Booker (1893) 97 Cal. 588)

Back to Index

"It is an axiom, however, among experienced cadastral engineers, that if the original survey was made faithfully, and was supported by a reasonably good field-note record,

the true location of the original lines and corners can be restored."

(Hanes v Hollow Tree Lumber Co. (1961) 191 C.A.2d 665)

Back to Index

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act

"...the United States owned all submerged land in the continental shelf seaward of the lands granted to the States."

(67 Stat. 462, 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.)

(United States v California (1965) 381 U.S. 139)

Back to Index

P

Palomar Mountain

Unusual legal description

(Calvi v Bittner (1961) 198 Cal.App.2d 312)

Back to Index

Parallel Lines

"By definition, parallel lines are undoubtedly straight lines; but in common speech about boundaries, or in a geographical sense, the words, as we all know, are often used to represent lines which are not straight but are the photographs of each other."

(Fratt v Woodward (1867) 32 Cal. 230)

Back to Index

Parole Evidence

"Parole evidence is not admissible to add to, detract from, or vary the terms of a deed."

(White v State of California (1971) 21 C.A.3d 740)

(O'Farrel v Harney (1875) Sup.Ct. 128)

Back to Index

"Where an ambiguity appears on the face of the deed, parol evidence is admissible to determine the issue involved."

(City of Redlands v Nickerson (1961) 188 Cal.App2d 118)

Back to Index

Pascoe Map

A Map of Middletown

(Cadwalader v Nash (1887) 73 Cal. 44)

Back to Index

Of the Pueblo Lands of the City of San Diego (Miscellaneous Map No. 36)

(RIchert v City of San Diego (1930) 109 Cal.App.551)

Back to Index

Patents

"By the act of 1851...That act provides for the issuance of a patent from the United States to the claimant for all lands the title to which shall be confirmed."

(Ferris v Coover (1858) 10 Cal. 597)

Back to Index

Permanent Nuisance

"...is considered to be a permanent injury to property for which damages are assessed once and for all...the statute of limitations begins to run on the creation of the nuisance and bars all claims after its passage..."

(Beck Development Co. v Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1169)

Back to Index

Planning Law

Back to Index

Plat

"A plat is a subdivision of land into lots, streets, and alleys, marked upon the earth, and represented on paper."

(Burke v McCowen (1896) 115 Cal. 485)

Back to Index

"...the map or plat...implies a previous survey and marking upon the ground."

(Burke v McCowen (1896) 115 Cal. 485)

Back to Index

"...under the laws of the United States and the regulations of the land office no sales of public lands are made until the plat and field notes of the subdivision survey of the township in which they lie have been returned and approved..."

(Saunders v Polich (1967) 250 C.A.2d 140)

(Kimball v McKee, 149 Cal. 435)  (South Shore Land Co. v Peterson, 226 Cal.App.2d 725)

Back to Index

"Where a subdivider marks the corners of lots with iron stakes and purchasers rely on such stakes as monuments fixing the boundaries, the monuments prevail over the official plat of the subdivision."

(Arnold v Hanson (1949) 91 C.A.2d 15)  (Burke v McCowen (1896) 115 Cal. 481)

(Whiting v Gardner (1889) 80 Cal. 78)

Back to Index

Point of Beginning

"The place of beginning, under defendant's deed, as fixed by the parties, and not as supposed or assumed by the court, must govern."

(Currier v Nelson (1892) 96 Cal. 506)

(Faris v Phelan, 39 Cal. 612)

Back to Index

Police Power

(Beck Development Co. v Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1162)

Back to Index

"...within the limits of the police power some uncompensated hardships must be borne by individuals as the price of living in a modern, enlightened, and progressive community."

(Lambert v City & County of San Francisco (1997) 57 Cal.App4th 1173)

Back to Index

"This power of the government to act in furtherance of the public good without incurring liability for the resulting injury to private individuals is commonly known as the police power."

(Bacich v Board of Control (1943) 23 Cal.2d 343)

Back to Index

Political Code of 1872

(County of Colusa v Charter (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 256)

Back to Index

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act

(Water Code Sections 13000 et seq.)

(Beck Development Co. v Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1166)

Back to Index

Possession

"Possession of land is notice to the world of every right that the possessor has therein, legal or equitable; it is a fact putting all persons on inquiry as to the nature of the occupant's claims."

(Pacific Gas & Elec. Co . v Minnette (1953) 115 C.A.2d 705)

Back to Index

"Possession is notice not only of whatever title the occupant has but also of whatever right he may have in the property,..."

(Pacific Gas & Elec. Co, v Minnette (1953) 115 C.A.2d 705)

Back to Index

"...the knowledge chargeable to a person after he is put on inquiry by possession of land is not limited to such knowledge as would be gained by examination of the public records."

(Pacific Gas & Elec. Co . v Minnette (1953) 115 C.A.2d 705-706)

(Civil Code Section 19)

Back to Index

Pr

Practical Location

"Where the owner of a larger tract conveys a parcel thereof that he has delineated on the ground by fixed monuments, and the parties rely on such monuments as establishing the intended boundaries, under the doctrine of practical location, the monuments will prevail over any differing description in the deed..."

(Kraus v Griswold (1965) 232 C.A.2d 700)

(French v Brinkman (1963) 60 Cal.2d 547)

Back to Index

The Establishment of Boundary Lines by Practical Location (1916) 4 Cal.L.Rev. 179

Back to Index

Precedent

"...a trial court judgment does not establish precedent."

(State of California ex rel. State Lands Commission v Superior Court of Sacramento County (1995) 11 Cal.4th 62)

Back to Index

Pre-condemnation Announcements

"The earliest pronouncement on the subject of the effect to be given to announcements of proposed condemnation in determining just compensation appears to have come from the Court of Appeal in Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co. v Southern Pacific Co. (1936) 13 Cal.App.2d 505)"

(Klopping v City of Whittier (1972) 8 Cal.3d 39)

Back to Index

Pre-condemnation Delay

"...reported case authority is replete with examples of situations in which property owners...Successfully sued a governmental entity for damages resulting from "unreasonable pre-condemnation activities" even though the governmental entity never subsequently condemned, either directly or inversely, the property in question."

(Tilem v City of Los Angeles (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 694)

(People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v Diversified Properties Co. III (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 429)

Back to Index

"...there is no reported case authority of which we are aware that countenances the award of damages resulting from a governmental entity's "unreasonable pre-condemnation activities" which occurred after a property has been "taken" by that governmental entity."

(People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v Diversified Properties Co. III (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 429)

Back to Index

"...we shall reverse the judgment insofar as it assesses damages against the State for "unreasonable pre-condemnation activities..."

(People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v Diversified Properties Co. III (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 429)

Back to Index

Prescriptive Easements

by H Gerrity

Back to Index

"A party claiming establishment of a prescriptive easement must show use of the property that has been open and notorious, continuous, and adverse for five years."

(Mesnick v Caton (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1251)

Back to Index

"Prescriptive easement barred by periodic posting of sign."

(Civil Code Sec. 1008)

Back to Index

"Lack of use not only prevents a prescriptive easement from arising, it precludes its enforceability."

(Mesnick v Caton (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1251)

Back to Index

"The party claiming the prescriptive easement bears the burden of proving each of its prerequisites."

(Bennett v Lew (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 1177)

Back to Index

Private Deed

"A private grant is to be interpreted in favor of the grantee...A grant from the sovereign is to be interpreted in favor of the grantor..."

(Freeman v Bellegarde (1895) 108 Cal. 184-185)

(Orena v Newlove (1908) 153 Cal. 136)

Back to Index

Private Easement

"When one lays out a tract of land into lots and streets and sells the lots by reference to a map which exhibits the lots and streets as they lie with relation to each other, the purchasers of such lots have a private easement in the streets opposite their respective lots for ingress and egress...and...is entirely independent of the fact of dedication to public use..."

(Ratchford v County of Sonoma (1972) 22 C.A.3d 1057)

(Danielson v Sykes (1910) 157 Cal. 689)

Back to Index

"Where a conveyance by a deed specifically referred to the recorded map of the tract of which the land was a part, and the map depicted the roadway adjacent to the land, and the effect was to convey also a private right of way and easement appurtenant to said land, over the entire width of the road."

(Severo v Pacheco (1946) 75 C.A.2d 30)

Back to Index

"A private easement to a roadway acquired by grant is not affected by a subsequent abandonment of the highway by the board of supervisors as a public thoroughfare.  It may survive such an abandonment."

(Severo v Pacheco (1946) 75 C.A.2d 33)

Back to Index

"Where lots in a subdivision are sold by reference to a map or plat upon which ways are shown which are or become public streets or highways, the private easement which arises upon such a sale survives the vacation, abandonment, or closing of the street or highway by the public."

(Severo v Pacheco (1946) 75 C.A.2d 33)

Back to Index

Private Land Claims

(Minturn v Brower (1864) 24 Cal. 656)

Back to Index

Private Right-of-Way

"Where a conveyance by a deed specifically referred to the recorded map of the tract of which the land was a part, and the map depicted the roadway adjacent to the land, and the effect was to convey also a private right of way and easement appurtenant to said land, over the entire width of the road."

(Severo v Pacheco (1946) 75 C.A.2d 30)

Back to Index

"The owner of any easement in the nature of a private right-of-way, or of any land to which any such easement is attached, shall maintain it in repair."

(Civil Code Sec. 845 (a))

"Nonconsenting coowners of an easement in the nature of a right-of-way may be compelled to contribute to the keeping of the way in repair, but they may not, without their consent, be compelled to contribute to the cost of major improvements."

(McManus v Sequoyah Land Assoc (1966) 240 C.A.2d 349)

Back to Index

Private Trust Law

(City of Coronado v San Diego Unified Port District (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 455)

Back to Index

Progradation

(People v Hecker (1960) 179 Cal.App.2d 831)

(Carpenter v City of Santa Monica (1944) 63 C.A.2d 772)

Back to Index

Property

Property is acquired by:

1. Occupancy; 2. Accession; 3. Transfer; 4. Will; or, 5. Succession.

(Civil Code Sec. 1000)

Back to Index

Proportionate Measurement

"The proportionate measurement method of locating a corner...may be used when the corner is "lost", but not if it is merely "obliterated."

(Finley v Yuba County Water Dist. (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 692)

Back to Index

"...it is settled that incidental calls to natural objects may be resorted to where the locative calls have disappeared.  Certainly, they must be followed before resorting to the proportionate measurement method"

(State of California v Thompson (1971) 22 C.A.3d 380)

Back to Index

"The court held that the use of this method was not justified because the field notes of the original surveyor, even though extremely inaccurate as to distances, did give two topographical calls (one to a "steep descent" and one to his entry into "bottom land") which could be located on the ground.)

(Weaver v Howatt (1911) 161 Cal. 84-85)

Back to Index

Protective Acquisition of Right of Way

(People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v Diversified Properties Co. III (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 429)

Back to Index

Public Dedication

"As relevant here, a finding of public dedication required a showing that the public had used the land for a period of more than five years with full knowledge of the owner, without asking or receiving permission to do so and without objection being made by anyone."

(Gion v City of Santa Cruz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 29)

(Bess v County of Humboldt (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1550)

Back to Index

After 1971, "...an implied dedication does not arise simply because of permissive use."

(Bess v County of Humboldt (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1550)

(Civil Code Sections 813 and 1009)

Back to Index

Public Easement

"When a public easement in a street or alley is officially abandoned, title reverts to the owner or owners of the underlying fee."

(Pilkington v Fausone (1970) 11 C.A.3d 351)

Back to Index

Public Improvement

"A storm drainage system constructed and maintained by a public entity is such a public improvement..."

(DiMartino v City of Orinda (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 329)

Back to Index

"...district maintenance of a portion of the creek did not transform the culvert flowing under the plaintiffs' property into a public improvement."

(DiMartino v City of Orinda (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 343)

(Chatman v Alameda County Flood Control Dist. (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 424)

Back to Index

Public Lands

"...the term 'public lands' did not include tidelands."

(Borax Consolidated v City of Los Angeles (1935) 296 U.S. 10)

Back to Index

Public Nuisance

"In determining whether something is a public nuisance, the focus must be upon whether an entire neighborhood or community...are affected in the manner and by the factors that make the thing a nuisance under Civil Code section 3479..."

(Beck Development Co. v Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1167)

Back to Index

Public Roads

"The rejection by a county of an offer to dedicate a private road to the public, because the road did not meet county standards, did not preclude the road from nonetheless becoming public by the owner's implied dedication upon his subdivision of the land which the road traversed.  A road need not be maintained by the local governing entity in order to be public.  All roads over which the public has the right to travel, whether express or prescriptive, are public roads."

(Hays v Vanek (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 273)

Back to Index

"...a conveyance of property abutting a public road conveys fee title to midpoint of the road subject to a public easement."

(Hays v Vanek (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 284)

(Civil Code Sec. 1112)

Back to Index

"To establish the right of the public to use a road as a means of access to a river, the state is not required to prove the existence of a prescriptive easement, but rather, only that the road has been dedicated for public use."

(Bess v County of Humboldt (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1545)

Back to Index

Public Street

"...suffice it to say that title to a public street cannot be acquired by adverse use."

(People v Kerber, 152 Cal. 731, 93 Pac. 878)

Back to Index

"...publicly maintained and open to the use of the public."

(Citizens Against Gated Enclaves v Whitley Heights Civic Assn. (1994) 23 Cal.App4th 812)

Back to Index

Public Trust

"It is equally well established that although abutting landowners own the land between the high- and low-water marks, their ownership is subject to a public trust for purposes such as navigation, fishing, and recreation."

State of California v Superior Court (1981) 29 Cal.3d 210

Bess v County of Humboldt (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1549

Back to Index

"Public trust easements are traditionally defined in terms of navigation, commerce and fisheries.  They have been held to include the right to fish, hunt, bathe, swim, to use for boating and general recreation purposes the navigable waters of the state, and to use the bottom of the navigable waters for anchoring, standing, or other purposes."

(Marks v Whitney (1971) 6 Cal.3d 251)

Back to Index

Pueblo Land

History Of

(Vernon Irr. Co. v Los Angeles, 106 Cal. 237)

(Hart v Burnett, 15 Cal. 530)

Back to Index

"The rights of the pueblo were dependent upon Mexican laws, and when Mexico established those laws she was the owner of tidelands as well as uplands, and could have placed the boundaries of her pueblos wherever she thought proper."

(Borax Consolidated v City of Los Angeles (1935) 296 U.S. 10)

Back to Index

Pueblo Lands of San Diego

(Ames v City of San Diego (1894) 101 Cal. 390)

(Richert v City of San Diego (1930) 109 Cal.App.548)

(City of San Diego v Sloane (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 663)

Back to Index

Pueblo Lots

(Cadwalader v Nash (1887) 73 Cal. 49)

Pueblo Water Rights

"Because of its paramount right, the City may take and use the water of the river by the barrel or by the drop, but if it takes and uses only the drop, it cannot play dog in the manger with the water remaining in the barrel...The pueblo right attaches only to such water as the City needs and uses at a given time"

(City of San Diego v Sloane (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 663)

Back to Index

Q

Quantity

"...the quantity is the least certain part of the description and it must yield to the boundaries or numbers, if they do not agree."

(White v State of California (1971) 21 C.A.3d 741)

(Winans v Cheney (1880) 55 Cal. 567)

Back to Index

"...when boundaries are doubtful in themselves, quantity often becomes the controlling fact."

(Winans v Cheney (1880) 55 Cal. 569)

Back to Index

How to calculate the boundary

"If a deed conveys a given quantity of land, and describes it as bounded on a stream on one side,..."

(Hicks v Coleman (1864) 25 Cal. 122)

Back to Index

"Where the description is uncertain, a statement of the acreage conveyed may be used as an aid to interpretation."

(Summary of California Law, B.E. Witkin, Vol. 3, 1973, pg. 1856)

(Matteson v McCarthy (1929) 98 C.A. 45)

Back to Index

"...where such tracts are supposedly equal subdivisions...would strongly confirm the action of a trial court in disregarding such location in favor of another which would maintain the equality."

(Golden v City of Vallejo (1919) 41 Cal.App. 114)

Back to Index

Quiet Title Action

by H Gerrity

"A party who would quiet his title must prevail, if at all, on the strength of his own title and not on the weakness of the claims of an adversary."

(Finley v Yuba County Water Dist. (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 694)

(Helvey v Sax (1951) 38 Cal.2d 21)  (Millyard v Faus (1968) 268 C.A.2d 77)

Back to Index

"Title is not quieted as to boundaries, moving or otherwise; it is quieted as to legal interests in property."

(Lechuza Villas West v California Coastal Com. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 218)

Back to Index

Quitclaim

"A quitclaim deed transfers whatever present right or interest the grantor has in the property."

(Westlake v Silva (1942) 49 Cal.App.2d 476)

Back to Index

"...any interest in land that can be conveyed by deed is conveyable by quitclaim deed.  This includes an easement." 

(City of Manhattan Beach v Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 256-257)

Back to Index

"In this State, from the earliest times, quitclaim deeds have been in every-day use for the purpose of transferring title to land..."

(City of Manhattan Beach v Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 232)

Back to Index

"...the choice of the quitclaim deed form, with its established legal import, substantially reflects an intention to convey title in its entirety."

(City of Manhattan Beach v Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 232)

Back to Index

Quo Warranto

"The remedy of "quo warranto" belongs to the state, in its sovereign capacity, to protect the interests of the people as a whole and guard the public welfare..."

(Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., 1979, pg. 1131)

"A private individual has no legal capacity to attack the fixing or extension of municipal limits.  His sole remedy is in quo warranto."

(Hazelton v City of San Diego (1960) 183 Cal.App.2d 131)

Back to Index

(City of Coronado v San Diego Unified Port District (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 455)

Back to Index

R

Railroad

"...in California, although the law contains some statutes expressly governing certain railroad activities, it has never circumscribed the nature of the property interests they may acquire."

(City of Manhattan Beach v Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 241)

Back to Index

Railroad Easement

"The monument doctrine presumes an intent on the part of the grantor to grant to the middle of a monument...if the conveyance designates such object as a monument or boundary, but the mere abutting of property on a railway easement does not give rise to such a presumption."

(Millyard v Faus (1968) 268 C.A.2d 77)

Back to Index

Railroad Right of Way

(Faus v Nelson, 241 Cal.App.2d 320)

Back to Index

"The term "right of way" when applied to railroads, has no exact, well-defined meaning, but often is susceptible of a twofold signification.  It is used indiscriminately to describe, not only the easement, or special and limited right to use another person's land, but also the strip of land itself that is occupied for such use."

(City of Manhattan Beach v Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 234)

Back to Index

Rancho

"Where there is a conflict between the surveyed exterior boundaries of a Mexican grant and a subsequent government survey the grant survey must prevail."

(Blackburn v Nelson (1893) 100 Cal. 336)

Back to Index

"The call in the deed for the boundary of the rancho must be construed as a call for its actual boundary fixed upon the ground by its terminal monuments, which must control any mistakes in courses, distances, and estimated quantity contained in the deed."

(Orena v Newlove (1908) 153 Cal. 139)

Back to Index

Rancho de los Alamos

Santa Barbara County

(Orena v Newlove (1908) 153 Cal. 139)

Back to Index

Rancho de San Antonio

(Minturn v Brower (1864) 24 Cal. 655)

Back to Index

Rancho Los Alamitos

(City of Long Beach v Mansell (1970) 3 Cal.3d 462)

Back to Index

Rancho Paso de Robles

(Blackburn v Nelson (1893) 100 Cal. 336)

Back to Index

Rancho Topanga Malibu Sequit

(Lechuza Villas West v California Coastal Com. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 218)

Back to Index

Rancho Trabuco

(Glenn v Cook (1952) 108 Cal.App.2d 784)

Back to Index

Re

Records of Survey

San Diego County Map Processing Manual On-Line

Back to Index

Rectangular Rectitude

"Such conduct does not conform to the standard of "rectangular rectitude" expected of public bodies."

(Farrell v County of Placer, 23 Cal.2d 624)

(Palo Alto Inv. Co. v County of Placer (1969) 269 C.A.2d 367)

Back to Index

"...Men must turn square corners when they deal with the Government..."

(Shoban v Board of Trustees (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 534)  (48 Harv.L.Rev. 1299)

Back to Index

Redevelopment Law

Back to Index

Redondo Land Company

(City of Manhattan Beach v Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 232)

Back to Index

Re-emergence Doctrine

Federal Law

"Under the doctrine of re-emergence, when identifiable riparian land, once lost by erosion, subsequently re-emerges as a result of perceptible change in the river course, title to the surfaced land revests in its former owner."

(Bonelli Cattle Co. v Arizona (1973) 414 U.S. 313)

Back to Index

State Law

"...ownership of the new accretion is vested in either the new riparian proprietor or the former owner, depending on the state in which the land is located."

(Boundary Control and Legal Principles, Curtis M. Brown, 2nd edition, pg. 308)

Back to Index

Reliction

"Process of gradual exposure of land by permanent recession of body of water."

(Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., 1979, pg. 1161)

Back to Index

Remand

"The sending by the appellate court of the cause back to the same court out of which it came, for the purpose of having some further action taken on it there."

(Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., 1979, pg. 1162)

Back to Index

Remise, Release, and Quit-claim

"...the language "remise, release, and quit-claim" reflected an intent to convey a fee simple interest..."

(City of Manhattan Beach v Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 232)

Back to Index

Reservation

"...a reservation creates a new, lesser interest in a grantor conveying fee title."

(City of Manhattan Beach v Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 259)

Back to Index

Restrictions

"When the purpose of the restrictions can no longer be carried out the servitude comes to an end."

(Hirsch v Hancock (1959) 173 Cal.App.2d 745)

Back to Index

Resurveys

Manual of Surveying Instructions - 1973 - Chapter 6

Back to Index

"The government may resurvey its lands and locate boundaries in new and different places and thus correct an erroneous survey, but may not by such procedure adversely affect the rights of those who acquired an interest in lands with reference to the original survey."

(Phelps v PG&E Co. (1948) 84 C.A. 244)

Back to Index

Revert

"Of course the word 'revert' in its technical sense as dealing exclusively with titles should not be used in conjunction with an easement.  For an easement...abandoned by nonuse or use outside its limitations does not 'revert' to the grantor, it is simply extinguished."

(City of Manhattan Beach v Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 232)

Back to Index

"...the inaccurate use of 'revert' in a railway conveyance appears to be widespread."

(City of Manhattan Beach v Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 260)

Back to Index

Right

Right of Access

"It has long been recognized in this state and elsewhere that an owner of property abutting upon a public street has a property right in the nature of an easement in the street...which is his private right..."

(Bacich v Board of Control (1943) 23 Cal.2d 343)

Back to Index

"The precise origin of that property right is somewhat obscured but it may be said generally to have arisen by court decisions declaring that such right existed and recognizing it."

(Bacich v Board of Control (1943) 23 Cal.2d 343)

(18 Am.Jur., Eminent Domain, sec. 181)   (41 YaleL.J. 221)

Back to Index

Right of Entry

"The right of entry upon or to real property to investigate and utilize boundary evidence, and to perform surveys, is a right of persons legally authorized to practice land surveying and it shall be the responsibility of the owner or tenant who owns or controls property to provide reasonable access without undue delay."

(Civil Code Sec. 846.5 (a))

(Business and Professions Code Section 8762)

Back to Index

Right-of-Way

"The term "right of way" when applied to railroads, has no exact, well-defined meaning, but often is susceptible of a twofold signification.  It is used indiscriminately to describe, not only the easement, or special and limited right to use another person's land, but also the strip of land itself that is occupied for such use."

(City of Manhattan Beach v Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 234)

Back to Index

"...a reference to "right of way" normally indicates an easement."

(City of Manhattan Beach v Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 233)

Back to Index

Minimum right of way required for state funding of county road is 80 feet

(County of Colusa v Charter (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 259)

Back to Index

Riparian

"Belonging or relating to the bank of a river or stream..."

(Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., 1979, pg. 1192)

Back to Index

"...the quality of being riparian, especially to navigable water, may be the land's "most valuable feature" and is part and parcel of the ownership of the land itself."

(Bonelli Cattle Co. v Arizona (1973) 414 U.S. 313)

Back to Index

River

"A right-of-way to a river extends to the river throughout any changes in the river's course. The alluvial rights of any landowner are subject to that right-of-way."

Bess v County of Humboldt (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1552

Back to Index

Road

"An owner of land bounded by a road or street is presumed to own to the center of the way, but the contrary may be shown."

(Civil Code Sec. 831)

Back to Index

Road Standards

County of San Diego

Back to Index

Rule

"The good old rule sufficeth them, the simple plan, That they should take who have the power, And they should keep who can."

(Katz v Walkinshaw (1903) 141 Cal. 128)

Back to Index

Rule of Property

"A "rule of property" is a settled rule or principle, resting usually on precedents or a course of decisions, regulating the ownership or devolution of property."

(State of California v Superior Court (Lyon) (1981) 29 Cal.3d 213)

Back to Index

Rules of Interpretation

S

Back to Index

San Diego City

Municipal Code Search

Back to Index

San Diego City Charter

History of

(DeYoung v City of San Diego (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 11)

Back to Index

San Diego Unified Port District Act

(City of Coronado v San Diego Unified Port District (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 455)

Back to Index

San Francisco

"Before the military occupation of California by the army of the United States, San Francisco was a Mexican Pueblo, or municipal corporation, and was invested with title to the lands within her boundaries."

(Cohas v Raisin (1853) 3 Cal. 443)

Back to Index

Search

Search Engines

AltaVista

Dogpile

Google

Lycos

Back to Index

Special Interest Search Engines

WebCrawler

Yahoo

Back to Index

Senate

California State Senate

Back to Index

Severance Damages

"...the loss in value to the remainder tract by reason of a partial taking of land..."

(Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., 1979, pg. 1232)

Back to Index

"When property acquired by eminent domain is part of a larger parcel, compensation must be awarded for the injury, if any, to the remainder."

(Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 19; U.S. Const., 5th Amend.; CCP 1263.410, subd. (a))

(City of San Diego v Neumann (1993) 6 Cal.4th 738)

Back to Index

"City of Menlo Park v Artino (1957) 151 Cal.App.2d 261, appears to be the first case in which a property owner attempted to introduce evidence of the uses to which the property might be put in the future to establish entitlement to severance damages."

(City of San Diego v Neumann (1993) 6 Cal.4th 738)

Back to Index

"California law securely establishes that present unity of use is a prerequisite to any claim of entitlement to severance damages."

(City of San Diego v Neumann (1993) 6 Cal.4th 738)

Back to Index

"If a property owner establishes that there is a reasonable probability his contiguous commonly owned lots are or will be available for development or use as an integrated economic unit in the reasonably foreseeable future, all of the separate lots may be considered as a larger parcel for the purpose of considering whether severance damages are appropriate."

(City of San Diego v Neumann (1993) 6 Cal.4th 738)

Back to Index

Single Proportionate Measurement

"...a new measurement made on a single line to determine the position of a lost corner."

(Finley v Yuba County Water Dist. (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 695)

(Grimes, A Treatise on the Law of Surveying and Boundaries (4th ed. 1976) Sec. 389, pp. 481-488)

Back to Index

"...The proportional method is to be used only when no other reasonable method is possible and it must be so used that it does not contradict nor conflict with the official data..."

(Hanes v Hollow Tree Lumber Co. (1961) 191 C.A.2d 663)

Back to Index

Slant Drilling

(Hirsch v Hancock (1959) 173 Cal.App.2d 745)

Back to Index

Speculative Severance Damages

"We warned, however, that the measure of damages should not include "conjectural or speculative estimations of consequential damages or benefits.""

(S.F., A & S. R.R. Co. v Caldwell (1866) 31 Cal. 367)

(City of San Diego v Neumann (1993) 6 Cal.4th 738)

Back to Index

Spite Fences

"Any fence or other structure in the nature of a fence unnecessarily exceeding 10 feet in height maliciously erected or maintained for the purpose of annoying the owner or occupant of adjoining property is a private nuisance."

(Civil Code Sec. 841.4)

(Bar Due v Cox (1920) 47 C.A. 713)

Back to Index

Stare Decisis

"Courts are jurisdictionally bound to follow decisions of the California Supreme Court over the decisions of lower courts reaching a contrary result."

(Hays v Vanek (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 274)

Back to Index

"There is no principle which compels the observance of the doctrine of stare decisis, when a rule well settled and universally acquiesced in, has been violated."

(Cohas v Raisin (1853) 3 Cal. 443)

Back to Index

State Highways

"The width of the right-of-way for all state highways shall be at least 40 feet."

(Streets and Highways Code Sec. 160)

Back to Index

State Law

"...where title is deraigned from a federal patent confirming a Mexican grant, the extent of the right gained under the patent is to be determined by state and not federal law."

(Carpenter v City of Santa Monica (1944) 63 C.A.2d 772)

Back to Index

State of California

Boundary defined

(United States v California (1965) 381 U.S. 139)

Back to Index

Statute of Limitations

Latent construction defects, 10 years, Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 337.15

Back to Index

Street

Street

"An owner of land bounded by a road or street is presumed to own to the center of the way, but the contrary may be shown."

(Civil Code Sec. 831)

Back to Index

"The presumption that an owner of land bounded by a road or street owns to the center of the way (Civ. Code, Sec.831) is not conclusive, the intention of the parties to the deed being the determinative factor."

(Speer v Blasker (1961) 195 C.A.2d 156)

Back to Index

"...a description of property as bounded by the south side of a street must be taken as carrying the title to the limit of the south side, which is the center line of the street."

(Brown v Bachelder (1932) 214 Cal. 753-754)

Back to Index

Street Boundary

"In the absence of better evidence, the court might have been warranted in finding for appellants on the evidence as to the south boundary of Fourth street as it had been indicated on the ground by the line of fence and other improvements for twenty-five years."

(Hellman v City of Los Angeles (1899) 125 Cal. 387)

Back to Index

Street Improvements

San Diego County Improvement Plan Processing

Back to Index

Street Line

"...the number of feet as specified in the deed must give way to actual distance as fixed by the street line."

(Specht v O'Reilly (1934) 139 C.A. 175)

Back to Index

"...the line of the street as delineated upon the map to which reference is made in the description controls over the call of the course."

(Green v Palmer (1924) 68 Cal.App. 394)

Back to Index

"In determining the line of the street, measurements on that street would naturally be of more value than elsewhere..."

(Orena v City of Santa Barbara (1891) 91 Cal. 628)

Back to Index

"Where it appeared in evidence that all of the monuments of the official survey of a street were lost, and...evidence that...all the improvements on the south side of Fourth street...were on a line occupied by defendants' building and had occupied that line for at least twenty-five years...was the best evidence...to show the location of the south line of Fourth street."

(Hellman v City of Los Angeles (1899) 125 Cal. 383, 386)

Back to Index

"...evidence and maps of engineers not based upon the official survey,...involving the alteration of the length of lots shown by the official map,...is incompetent and inadmissible."

(Hellman v City of Los Angeles (1899) 125 Cal. 384)

Back to Index

Street Opening Act of 1889

(City of Rancho Palos Verdes v City Council (1976) 59 C.A.3d 886)

Back to Index

Street Vacation Act of 1941

(Sts. & Hy. Code, Sec. 8300)

(City of Rancho Palos Verdes v City Council (1976) 59 C.A.3d 886)

Back to Index

Street Width

"Where the figures "10" appear on a recorded map within the lines indicating a certain alley...but such alley is actually sixteen feet in width, measured between the lots..., all of which lots were sold by reference to said recorded map...such conflict will be construed most strongly against the original owners who filed such map of record."

(Larkey v City of Los Angeles (1925) 70 Cal.App. 635)

Back to Index

"...Ord's survey, which was adopted as the official map...shows Fourth street to have a uniform width of sixty feet....lot owners...had so encroached..that the width...is considerable less than sixty feet...the improvements...was the best evidence...to show the location of the south line of Fourth street."

(Hellman v City of Los Angeles (1899) 125 Cal. 385-386)

Back to Index

"...the original owners...when they filed for record a map and sold lots according thereto, which map showed that the lots were bounded by streets and alleys, ...would be bound by said map.  This ...would be true even if...the width of certain of the streets or alleys were extended beyond the apparent width shown on the map."

(Larkey v City of Los Angeles (1925) 70 Cal.App. 641)

Back to Index

"The 50-foot minimum width provided for county roads by the Political Code of 1872 was not applicable to determine the width of a county's right-of-way along a portion of a county road created under a road act that was silent as to the size of that width."

(County of Colusa v Charter (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 257-258)

Back to Index

"Evidence based upon courses and distances from other known points is admissible to fix a corner, where no corner is found, but never to change the location of an original corner when found."

(Gordon v Booker (1893) 97 Cal. 588)

Back to Index

"The 40 foot width requirement in section 906 of the Streets and Highways Code only applies to county roads established by formal act of the county and has no application to county roads established by dedication."

(Brumbaugh v County of Imperial (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 563)

Back to Index

Su

Subdivided Lands Act

"The appellate courts have there concluded that conveyances of lots depicted on a U.S. Survey Map are not exempt from statutory regulation since that map does not "subdivide" the property for purposes of the Subdivided Lands Act."

(John Taft Corp. v Advisory Agency (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 757)

Back to Index

Subdivision Map Act

California Government Code Sections 66410-66499.37

Chapter 1. General Provisions and Definitions

Chapter 2. Maps

Chapter 3. Procedure

Definitions Sections 66414-66424.6

Back to Index

Enforcement and Judicial Review 66499.30 - 66499.37

Final Maps Sections 66433-66443

General Provisions Sections 66410-66413.5

Parcel Maps Sections 66444-66450

"For purposes of this division or of a local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto, any parcel created prior to March 4, 1972, shall be conclusively presumed to have been lawfully created if the parcel resulted from a division of land in which fewer than five parcels were created and if at the time of the creation of the parcel, there was no local ordinance in effect which regulated divisions of land creating fewer than five parcels."

(Government Code Section 66412.6. (a))

Back to Index

Subdivision Map Act of March 15, 1907

"...an act requiring the recording of maps of subdivisions of land into lots for the purpose of sale, and prescribing the conditions on which such maps may be recorded and prohibiting the selling or offering for sale of land by reference to said maps unless the same are recorded..."

(Ratchford v County of Sonoma (1972) 22 C.A.3d 1059-1060)

Back to Index

"In 1926, a valid subdivision could be created in one of two ways.  The developer could file with the county recorder a legal subdivision map as specified in the 1907 Subdivision Map Act...and sell lots by reference to the map.  Alternatively, the developer could stake out a subdivision and sell lots by "metes and bounds" descriptions rather than by reference to a map."

(Hays v Vanek (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 288)

Back to Index

"...various requirements for a filed subdivision map including a designation of lots by letter or number and boundaries, a certification by all owners as to title and the county auditor as to tax liens, an endorsement by the owners of new lands dedicated to public use, and an identification of public streets and highways to abut each parcel."

(Hays v Vanek (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 288-289)

(Ratchford v County of Sonoma (1972) 22 C.A.3d 1056)

Back to Index

Subdivision Map Act of 1929

"That act for the first time required the filing of a subdivision map in order to create a legal subdivision."

(Hays v Vanek (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 289)

Back to Index

Submerged Lands Act of 1953

"The Act merely confirmed the States' pre-existing rights in the beds of the navigable waterways within their boundaries by...quitclaiming all federal claims thereto."

(Bonelli Cattle Co. v Arizona (1973) 414 U.S. 313)  (United States v California (1965) 381 U.S. 139)

(People v Hecker (1960) 179 C.A.2d 824)

Back to Index

Substantial Evidence

"Substantial evidence is not any evidence, but substantial proof of the essentials which the law requires in a given case.  Substantial evidence has ponderable legal significance, is reasonable, credible and of solid value."

(Buckley v California Coastal Com. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 473-474)

Back to Index

"It must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value; it must actually be substantial proof of the essentials that the law requires in a particular case."

(DiMartino v City of Orinda (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 329)

Back to Index

Summary Judgment

"In so doing, the Supreme Court followed an unbroken line of decision in this state since the date of the original enactment of [Code Civ. Proc.] section 437c, the principle has become well established that issue finding rather than issue determination is the pivot upon which the summary judgment law turns."

(County of San Diego v Miller (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 424)

Back to Index

Supra

"This word occurring by itself in a book refers the reader to a previous part of the book..."

(Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., 1979, pg. 1291)

Back to Index

Supreme Court

"Once a hearing has been granted by the Supreme Court, the decision and opinion of the District Court of Appeal is a nullity and of no effect as a precedent or authoritative statement of law."

(Hazelton v City of San Diego (1960) 183 Cal.App.2d 131)

Back to Index

Sur

Survey

"No absolutely accurate survey ever was or ever will be made."

(Orena v City of Santa Barbara (1891) 91 Cal. 630, 28 Pac. 268)

(Glenn v Cook (1952) 108 Cal.App.2d 784)

Back to Index

"...The inaccuracy of the early surveys in California, as well as in other states, is a matter of such common knowledge that the courts are warranted in taking judicial cognizance of the existence of such inaccuracy, as they frequently have done..."

(Hellman v City of Los Angeles (1899) 125 Cal. 387)

Back to Index

"The survey as made in the field and the lines as actually run on the surface of the earth at the time the blocks were surveyed and the plats filed must control."

(Beall v Weir (1909) 11 Cal.App. 369)

Back to Index

"...if there is a discrepancy between the map and the survey, the survey must prevail, if the position of the points and lines established by the survey can be proved."

(O'Farrel v Harney (1875) Sup.Ct. 127)

Back to Index

"You can spend your whole ranch on the survey and you won't know any more when you finish than when you started."

(Glenn v Cook (1952) 108 Cal.App.2d 784)

Back to Index

Sutter, John A., Sr.

City of Sacramento

(Gramer v City of Sacramento (1935) 2 Cal.2d 434)

(Mayo v Wood, 50 Cal. 171)

Back to Index

Swamp and Overflowed Land

(Harrington v Boehmer (1901) 134 Cal. 200)

Back to Index

T

Taking

"As a general rule, no governmental taking results from the downzoning of property in such a manner as to limit its potential for development."

(Lambert v City & County of San Francisco (1997) 57 Cal.App4th 1172)

Back to Index

"The governmental regulation of the development of land rises to the level of a "taking" if it denies an owner economically viable use of his land"

(Agins v Tiburon (1980) 447 U.S. 255)

(People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v Diversified Properties Co. III (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 429)

Back to Index

"The denial of the highest and best use does not constitute an unconstitutional taking of property."

(Lambert v City & County of San Francisco (1997) 57 Cal.App4th 1172)

Back to Index

"Land-use regulation does not effect a "taking" of property, within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment prohibition against taking private property for public use without just compensation, if it substantially advances legitimate state interests and does not deny an owner economically viable use of his land."

(Nollan v California Coastal Comm'n (1987) 483 US 825, 97 L.Ed.2d 682)

Back to Index

"Even when there is a very substantial diminution in the value of land, there is no taking."

(Lambert v City & County of San Francisco (1997) 57 Cal.App4th 1173)

Back to Index

"The law has adopted market value as establishing actual value of property taken for public use."

(People v Ricciardi (1943) 23 C.2d 391)

Back to Index

"The record in this case discloses that while plaintiff may have shown practical necessity, there is no showing of urgency, or extreme expediency, or legal necessity, or that the proposed taking is indispensable."

(City of Carlsbad v Wight (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 756)

Back to Index

Takings Clause

"One of the principal purposes of the Takings Clause is "to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.""

(Armstrong v United States (1960) 364 US 40)

(San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v San Diego (1981) 450 US 621)

Back to Index

Technical Words

"...technical words are to be interpreted as usually understood by parties in the profession or business to which they relate."

(Richfield Oil Corp. v Crawford (1952) 39 C.2d 742)

Back to Index

Temporary Taking

(Landgate, Inc. v California Coastal Com. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1006)

Back to Index

Tentative Map

Defined

(Government Code Section 66424.5)

Back to Index

The words "Terms and Conditions Aforesaid"

"...can variously be construed as evidence of either a fee or an easement..."

(City of Manhattan Beach v Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 232)

Back to Index

Terrell

Surveyed part of Casmalia Rancho in ca. 1880

(Tognazzini v Morganti (1890) 84 Cal. 160)

Back to Index

Testimony

"The testimony of the surveyors not based upon the official survey...was inadmissible."

(Hellman v City of Los Angeles (1899) 125 Cal. 384)

Back to Index

Thread of Stream

"...the measurement of the water at its lowest stage."

(Bishel v Faria (1959) 53 C.2d 261)

(Freeman v Bellegarde (1895) 108 Cal. 179)

Back to Index

Ti

Tia Juana River Valley Flood Control Project

History of

(Helix Land Co. v City of San Diego (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 932)

Back to Index

Tidelands

"Tidelands are properly those lands lying between the lines of mean high and low tide covered and uncovered successively by the ebb and flow thereof."

(Marks v Whitney (1971) 6 Cal.3d 251)

(White v State of California (1971) 21 C.A.3d 739)

Back to Index

"Upon the acquisition of the territory from Mexico, the United States acquired the title to tidelands equally with the title to upland, but held the former only in trust for the future states that might be erected out of that territory."

(Borax Consolidated v City of Los Angeles (1935) 296 U.S. 10)

(Knight v United Land Association, 142 U.S. 161)

Back to Index

"...if there were any tidelands within the pueblo, the power and duty of the United States under the treaty to protect the claims of the city of San Francisco as successor to the pueblo were superior to any subsequently acquired rights of California."

(Borax Consolidated v City of Los Angeles (1935) 296 U.S. 10)

Back to Index

"Both tidelands and the beds of navigable rivers are owned by the state in trust for the public."

(State of California ex rel. State Lands Commission v Superior Court of Sacramento County (1995) 11 Cal.4th 52)

Back to Index

"...reclaimed tidelands belong to the state or its grantees..."

(Carpenter v City of Santa Monica (1944) 63 C.A.2d 790)

Back to Index

"When tidelands have been so freed from the (Public) trust...they may be irrevocably conveyed into absolute private ownership."

(Marks v Whitney (1971) 6 Cal.3d 251)

Back to Index

"...a patentee of tidelands (a private owner)...owns "the soil, subject to the easement of the public for the public uses of navigation and commerce, and to the right of the state, as administrator and controller of these public uses and the public trust thereof, to enter upon and possess the same for the preservation and advancement of the public uses and to make such changes and improvements as may be deemed advisable for those purposes.""

(Marks v Whitney (1971) 6 Cal.3d 251)

Back to Index

Title

"If a man has really acquired title to land, he cannot afterward be mapped out of it by other persons."

(Payne v English (1889) 79 Cal. 547)

Back to Index

Title Insurance

Claims Procedures Under Title Insurance Policies

Back to Index

To

Todos Santos Rancho

(Tognazzini v Morganti (1890) 84 Cal. 160)

Back to Index

Topo Calls

"In relocating the boundaries of an official survey...the calls of the field notes of the survey as to the location of certain topographical features...described therein as witness-monuments, must prevail over the specified courses of the boundary lines..."

(Tognazzini v Morganti (1890) 84 Cal. 159)

"...it is settled that incidental calls to natural objects may be resorted to where the locative calls have disappeared.  Certainly, they must be followed before resorting to the proportionate measurement method"

(State of California v Thompson (1971) 22 C.A.3d 380)

"If the monuments set by the original government surveyor are obliterated and undiscoverable, the corner must, if possible, be located by reference to the natural objects and topography described in the field notes of the original survey."

(Weaver v Howatt (1911) 161 Cal. 77) (Wilmon v Aros (1923) 191 Cal. 80, 82-83)

(Chandler v Hibberd (1958) 165 C.A.2d 52) (State of California v Thompson (1971) 22 C.A.3d 377)

Back to Index

Torrens Act

(In re Dixon (1932) 120 Cal.App. 636)

Back to Index

Township

"A government township lies just where the government surveyor lines it out on the face of the earth."

(State of California v Thompson (1971) 22 C.A.3d 377)

(Harrington v Boehmer (1901) 134 Cal. 196)

Back to Index

Town-Site Act

(Laurel Hill Cemetery Assn. v All Persons (1945) 69 Cal.App.2d 190)

Back to Index

Tr

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo

"All public lands belonging to the Mexican government became public lands of the United States upon the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo on February 2, 1848."

(Lux v Haggin (1886) 69 C. 255)  (Knight v United Land Assn,. 142 U.S. 161)

(Minturn v Brower (1864) 24 Cal. 644)   (Carpenter v City of Santa Monica (1944) 63 C.A.2d 772)

Back to Index

"The civil law did not control all negotiations at a time subsequent to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and prior to the adoption of the first California Constitution."

(Gramer v City of Sacramento (1935) 2 Cal.2d 432)

Back to Index

Trees

"Trees whose trunks stand wholly upon the land of one owner belong exclusively to him, although their roots grow into the land of another."

(Civil Code Sec. 833)

"Trees whose trunks stand partly on the land of two or more coterminous owners, belong to them in common."

(Civil Code Sec. 834)

Back to Index

Trespass

"...as to trespass, the injured party may recover the costs of removal and restoration or loss of market value..."

(Armitage v Decker (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 887)

Back to Index

"...liability for trespass may be imposed only if the trespass was intentional, reckless, negligent, or the result of ultrahazardous activity."

(Armitage v Decker (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 906)

Back to Index

Trial Court

"...the taking of evidence is the province of the trial court..."

(County of Colusa v Charter (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 268)

Back to Index

"...existence of an estoppel is generally a question of fact for the trial court..."

(Palo Alto Inv. Co. v County of Placer (1969) 269 C.A.2d 366)

Back to Index

"...a trial court judgment does not establish precedent."

(State of California ex rel. State Lands Commission v Superior Court of Sacramento County (1995) 11 Cal.4th 62)

Back to Index

"...the trial judge found the Pump survey was invalid, or at least not entitled to much weight.  His determination as to the weight of the evidence or the credibility of the witness Pump was exclusively within the province of the trial court."

(Daluiso v Boone (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 253)

(City of Carlsbad v Wight (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 756)

"The grant or denial of a preliminary injunction generally lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of a clear abuse of discretion."

(DeYoung v City of San Diego (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 11)

Back to Index

"...the factual determination of whether a "taking" has occurred is a determination to be made by the trial court and not by the jury."

(Marshall v Department of Water & Power (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1124)

(People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v Diversified Properties Co. III (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 429)

Back to Index

"In the trial court the burden of proving necessity rests upon the condemner and the necessity of the taking is a question of fact for the trier of facts."

(City of Carlsbad v Wight (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 756)

Back to Index

True Line

"A "true line" is undoubtedly a straight line..."

(Lillis v Urrutia (1908) 9 Cal.App. 561)

Back to Index

U

Unclean Hands

"A plaintiff's hands are rendered unclean within the purview of the maxim by any conduct that, in the eyes of honest and fairminded men, may properly be condemned and pronounced wrongful."

(Mesnick v Caton (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1252)

Back to Index

"The courts cannot use this doctrine to penalize a litigant's supposed inequitable conduct that is both unrelated to a matter before the court and addressed toward a party not involved in that pending matter."

(Mesnick v Caton (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1252)

Back to Index

Unconstitutional Conditions

"Under the well settled doctrine of "unconstitutional conditions," the government may not require a person to give up a constitutional right in exchange for a discretionary benefit conferred by the government where the property sought has little or no relationship to the benefit."

(Dolan v City of Tigard (1994) U.S.)

Back to Index

Underlying Fee

"The owner of an easement by implication may acquire the underlying fee by adverse possession..."

(Southern Pac. Co. v City & County of S. F. (1964) 62 C.2d 50)

Back to Index

"...The use of a metes and bounds description which does not include one-half of an adjoining street is one of the ways to rebut the

statutory presumption that the grantee takes the underlying fee to the center of the street."

(Hixson v Jones (1967) 253 C.A.2d 864)

(Speer v Blasker (1961) 195 C.A.2d 156)

Back to Index

United States Army Corps of Engineers

Legal Services

Back to Index

United States Code

Search

Back to Index

United States House of Representatives

106th Congress, 2nd Session

Back to Index

United States Supreme Court

Full text search of decisions between 1937 and 1975

Back to Index

United States Survey Maps

"...United States survey maps prepared and recorded pursuant to federal law do not constitute subdivisions of land within the meaning of the Subdivision Map Act."

(John Taft Corp. v Advisory Agency (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 749)

Back to Index

"California judicial authorities do not treat the filing of the U.S. Survey Map as though this established "subdivisions" of land which would obviate the need for compliance with the Map Act at the time of a later title transfer."

(John Taft Corp. v Advisory Agency (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 757)

Back to Index

Unity of Property

"To constitute a unity of property between two or more contiguous but prima facie distinct parcels of land, there must be such a connection or relation of adaptation, convenience, and actual and permanent use as to make the enjoyment of the parcel taken reasonably and substantially necessary to the enjoyment of the parcels left, in the most advantageous and profitable manner in the business for which they are used..."

(City of San Diego v Neumann (1993) 6 Cal.4th 738)

Back to Index

Unity of Title

"The fact that several tracts are owned by different persons does not preclude them from being regarded as one where they are contiguous and are used in common by the owners under a contract or other arrangement and each tract is more valuable by reason of that use than if used separately."

(City of San Diego v Neumann (1993) 6 Cal.4th 738)

Back to Index

Unity of Use

"...three requirements must be met to establish that the land remaining to the owner after condemnation is part of a "larger parcel": (1) unity of title; (2) contiguity of the parcels; and (3) unity of use."

(City of San Diego v Neumann (1993) 6 Cal.4th 738)

Back to Index

"California law securely establishes that present unity of use is a prerequisite to any claim of entitlement to severance damages."

(City of San Diego v Neumann (1993) 6 Cal.4th 738)

Back to Index

Unrecorded Conveyances

Back to Index

Unrecorded Deed

"One who buys real estate from another, with the actual knowledge at the time of his purchase that his grantor had before that time made some kind of a conveyance of the same property to another person whose deed has not been recorded, is not a purchaser in good faith..."

(Galland v Jackman (1864) 26 Cal. 80)

Back to Index

(Del Carlo v County of Sonoma (1966) 245 C.A.2d 36)

Back to Index

Upland

"Was it upland, which the United States could patent, or tideland, which it could not?"

(Borax Consolidated v City of Los Angeles (1935) 296 U.S. 10)

Back to Index

V

Vacation

"Statutory authority for the vacation of city streets first appears in chapter LXXVI of the Statutes of 1889."

(City of Rancho Palos Verdes v City Council (1976) 59 C.A.3d 885)

Back to Index

"As a general legal proposition, in the absence of fraud or collusion, a decision by a city council of what constitutes public interest or convenience in a proceeding for vacation of a street is legislative in character, and a determination by the council of such question is conclusive."

(Ratchford v County of Sonoma (1972) 22 C.A.3d 1058)

Back to Index

"Where lots in a subdivision are sold by reference to a map or plat upon which ways are shown which are or become public streets or highways, the private easement which arises upon such a sale survives the vacation, abandonment, or closing of the street or highway by the public."

(Severo v Pacheco (1946) 75 C.A.2d 33)

Back to Index

"A street may not be vacated for exclusive private use."

(Citizens Against Gated Enclaves v Whitley Heights Civic Assn. (1994) 23 Cal.App4th 812)

Back to Index

Valuation

"...the value of property springs from subjective needs and attitudes; its value to the owner may therefore differ widely from its value to the taker...what shall be the measure of compensation to the owner of land taken for public use, is involved in considerable confusion in the decisions of Courts on the subject."

(City of San Diego v Neumann (1993) 6 Cal.4th 738)

Back to Index

Van Ness Ordinance

(Laurel Hill Cemetery Assn. v All Persons (1945) 69 Cal.App.2d 190)

Back to Index

Vendor's Lien

"The notice (of vendor's lien) was therefore not authorized to be recorded and no provision of law provides that such a notice gives subsequent purchasers constructive notice of the lien."

(Brown v Johnson (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 851)

Back to Index

Vesting Tentative Map

Defined

(Government Code Section 66424.5 and 65961)

Back to Index

Vioget, John J.

Surveyed tract of land for John A. Sutter in 1841 using a compass, chain, artificial horizon, and sextant

(Ferris v Coover (1858) 10 Cal. 591)

Back to Index

Von Schmidt

Survey of part of Casmalia Rancho in 1880 rejected by government

(Tognazzini v Morganti (1890) 84 Cal. 160)

Back to Index

W

Wall

"Before I built a wall I'd ask to know/What I was walling in or walling out."

(Bryant v Blevins (1994) 9 Cal.App.4th 59)

Back to Index

Washington

Town of Washington, Yolo County, California

Description of original survey laying out the lots, blocks and streets of the town

(O'Farrel v Harney (1875) Sup.Ct. 125-128)

Back to Index

Water

"The law of California is settled that percolating water belongs absolutely to the owner of the soil, with the right to use and divert it as the owner sees fit."

(Katz v Walkinshaw (1903) 141 Cal. 119)

Back to Index

Water Code

"In 1968 the Legislature of the State of California enacted California Water Code sections 12744-12744.2 providing for state funding for the acquisition of rights of way for such a flood control project."  (Tia Juana River)

(Helix Land Co. v City of San Diego (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 932)

Back to Index

Water-Lot Act

March 26, 1851

(Payne v English (1889) 79 Cal. 544)

Back to Index

Wetlands

"...wetlands are areas within the coastal zone that may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and are characterized by hydric soils and/or hydrophytes..."

21.47 acre property in Encinitas, Califonia

(Kirkorowicz v Cal. Coastal Com. (2000) Cal.App.4th

X

Y

Back to Index

Z

Zoning

"As a general rule, no governmental taking results from the downzoning of property in such a manner as to limit its potential for development."

(Lambert v City & County of San Francisco (1997) 57 Cal.App4th 1172)

Back to Index