My question involves an easement in the state of: AZ
I'm currently looking to purchase a lot in the City in which I live. The owner lives out of state. After speaking with him, and was granted permission to walk his property, I began to take some rough measurements. To my surprise, the measurements did not match those of the description.
After reviewing the County Assessor's online maps, I discovered the neighbor to the right has two structures (equine) and a fence that go 40' onto this property. Fearing that this may have been a single parcel which was later split, I went to the City Records department and found a 1959 plat map. The parcels have always been separate AND there is supposed to be 40' of easement. The breakdown is 20' on the west side of the lot I'm interested in and 20' to the east of the neighbors lot. My (the vacant lot) interest is supposed to have 20' (20' wide and 235' long) for public utilities and drainage while the neighbors 20' is supposed to be for equine access to a trail which is behind the lots. Both of these 20' easements have been fenced in. I went back to the Records department and learned that there are two permits for block fencing approved in 1999. There are no site plans attached to this however. So, my first and immediate reaction is, 'adverse possession.' As Lee Corso would say, "Not so fast my friend!"
I then went and visited the Code Enforcement agency. After speaking with a supervisor and explaining that I had already spoken with a Sr. Planner within the City AND had all of the aerial photography from the County, he agreed to send out one of his officers within the next 24 hours. I received a call back from that field officer who informed me that yes, the fence is over the easement. Also, he indicated that the structures are over the property line AND do not meet the required set-back requirements for R1-35 (15 feet) from a fence line. So, the other owner seems to be in some violation of that as well.
So, how did he (neighbor) get a permit to build a fence and structures all of which go against all zoning criteria? Quick run back down to the Records Department and asked for aerial photography from each and every year on record. Surprise, no permits for structures and photography shows it went up in 2006 at some point.
So, after a few more conversations with City Planning and Code Enforcement staff, I'm to hear back from supervisory level by Tuesday. What I'm waiting to hear back is whether or not the City will address structures, set backs AND easement access. "Tear down that wall Mr. Gorbachev!"
Lastly, I've reached out to two law firms who specialize in real estate law. Each has immediately concluded adverse possession until I got to the part about the City Easements. Statute says adverse possession does not apply to lands owned by municipalities. Although this is not owned by the City, zoning language does clearly state that the City has complete and final judgement and control over the space.
And, last piece of interesting development. I also just found language that indicates that if a property owner does want to take control / possession of utility easement, they must receive written approval from all 6 utilities (they name them all and how to reach them). No such submitted documents exist on file with the City or County.
So, anyone have any experience with this type of situation? Thanks in advance for your time.
I'm currently looking to purchase a lot in the City in which I live. The owner lives out of state. After speaking with him, and was granted permission to walk his property, I began to take some rough measurements. To my surprise, the measurements did not match those of the description.
After reviewing the County Assessor's online maps, I discovered the neighbor to the right has two structures (equine) and a fence that go 40' onto this property. Fearing that this may have been a single parcel which was later split, I went to the City Records department and found a 1959 plat map. The parcels have always been separate AND there is supposed to be 40' of easement. The breakdown is 20' on the west side of the lot I'm interested in and 20' to the east of the neighbors lot. My (the vacant lot) interest is supposed to have 20' (20' wide and 235' long) for public utilities and drainage while the neighbors 20' is supposed to be for equine access to a trail which is behind the lots. Both of these 20' easements have been fenced in. I went back to the Records department and learned that there are two permits for block fencing approved in 1999. There are no site plans attached to this however. So, my first and immediate reaction is, 'adverse possession.' As Lee Corso would say, "Not so fast my friend!"
I then went and visited the Code Enforcement agency. After speaking with a supervisor and explaining that I had already spoken with a Sr. Planner within the City AND had all of the aerial photography from the County, he agreed to send out one of his officers within the next 24 hours. I received a call back from that field officer who informed me that yes, the fence is over the easement. Also, he indicated that the structures are over the property line AND do not meet the required set-back requirements for R1-35 (15 feet) from a fence line. So, the other owner seems to be in some violation of that as well.
So, how did he (neighbor) get a permit to build a fence and structures all of which go against all zoning criteria? Quick run back down to the Records Department and asked for aerial photography from each and every year on record. Surprise, no permits for structures and photography shows it went up in 2006 at some point.
So, after a few more conversations with City Planning and Code Enforcement staff, I'm to hear back from supervisory level by Tuesday. What I'm waiting to hear back is whether or not the City will address structures, set backs AND easement access. "Tear down that wall Mr. Gorbachev!"
Lastly, I've reached out to two law firms who specialize in real estate law. Each has immediately concluded adverse possession until I got to the part about the City Easements. Statute says adverse possession does not apply to lands owned by municipalities. Although this is not owned by the City, zoning language does clearly state that the City has complete and final judgement and control over the space.
And, last piece of interesting development. I also just found language that indicates that if a property owner does want to take control / possession of utility easement, they must receive written approval from all 6 utilities (they name them all and how to reach them). No such submitted documents exist on file with the City or County.
So, anyone have any experience with this type of situation? Thanks in advance for your time.
Use and Enforcement: Easements / Adverse Possession of City Easements
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire