## Facts

- In 1865, S.H. Greene owned over 1,000 acres in Sonoma County and recorded a map depicting a grid of nearly 90 lots across largely undeveloped land near Sebastopol.
- The map showed lot dimensions and certain natural features and a bordering county road, but no internal roads, easements, access, or other subdivision infrastructure.
- No subdivision map regulations existed in 1865; the map was recorded without public review or approval.
- An 1877 county “official map” reproduced the same subdivision configuration.
- Over time, the land was repeatedly conveyed as a single tract; the lots shown on the 1865 map were not separately conveyed.
- In 1996, the Gardners (owners of about 158 acres within the larger tract) sought county recognition that their property comprised 12 separate legal parcels corresponding to 12 lots on the 1865 map so the lots could be sold, leased, or financed separately.
- County staff denied the request; the planning commission and board of supervisors affirmed, treating the property as a single parcel based on the pre-statute map and the consistent historic conveyance as one unit.
- The superior court denied a writ petition; the court of appeal affirmed; the California Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether recordation of an 1865 subdivision map, made before any subdivision-map statutes existed, created legally cognizable parcels under the Subdivision Map Act (SMA).
2. Whether Government Code § 66499.30’s exception for parcels offered in compliance with subdivision laws in effect when the subdivision was established required recognition of the 12 lots.
3. Whether Government Code § 66451.10(a)’s protection against automatic merger of contiguous parcels compelled recognition of the 12 lots as separate parcels.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment upholding the county’s refusal to recognize 12 separate parcels.
- The Court held that the 1865 recordation of the Greene map did not establish legally cognizable subdivision parcels for purposes of the SMA.
- The Court held that § 66499.30 did not apply because no subdivision laws existed in 1865 with which the map could have complied.
- The Court held that § 66451.10(a) did not apply because it prevents merger of parcels that were lawfully created or exempted under applicable law; it does not create parcels from unregulated, pre-statute map lots.

## Legal Principles

- A subdivision map recorded before the existence of subdivision-map statutes does not, by recordation alone, create legal parcels recognized under the SMA.
- Government Code § 66499.30 preserves parcels established in compliance with subdivision laws in effect at the time of creation; it does not retroactively validate lots depicted on maps recorded when no such laws existed.
- Government Code § 66451.10(a) operates as a non-merger protection for lawfully created or exempt parcels; it does not confer parcel status on lots never established under applicable subdivision law.
- The SMA is construed to require public oversight of land division to ensure orderly development and adequate infrastructure; interpretations that would recognize unreviewed, historic plats as modern legal parcels are disfavored absent clear statutory direction.

## Conclusion

The Court held that lots shown on an 1865 recorded map—filed before any subdivision regulatory scheme—were not separate legal parcels under the Subdivision Map Act, and the Act’s grandfathering and anti-merger provisions did not require the county to treat the Gardners’ land as 12 separately transferable parcels.


Gardner v. County of Sonoma, 29 Cal. 4th 990 (Cal. 2003)