## Facts

- Santa Barbara County adopted “Antiquated Subdivision” zoning ordinances for old, preexisting subdivisions (including the Naples Townsite on the Gaviota Coast) that imposed current minimum lot-size and density requirements on lots created long ago.
- Under the ordinances, development of certain substandard parcels was allowed only if the parcel met the current minimum lot-size/density standards, and the county’s scheme required substandard contiguous parcels to be combined (merged) to meet those standards, unless the parcel was “held in separate ownership” when the county initiated the rezoning process.
- John M. Morehart and others owned Block 132 in the Naples Townsite, an approximately 3.7-acre parcel within an 1888 subdivision.
- The Moreharts sought a coastal development permit to build a single-family residence on Block 132.
- The county concluded the permit should be denied because Block 132 could be combined with adjoining contiguous parcels that were under common control through the Moreharts’ family (including ownership by their children and family-related entities), creating a larger parcel that would better satisfy the county’s density and lot-size requirements.
- The Moreharts sued the county and its Board of Supervisors, asserting five causes of action, including claims that the county’s merger requirement was preempted by the Subdivision Map Act’s parcel-merger statutes; they also pleaded inverse condemnation and civil-rights damages theories.
- The trial court ordered the preemption claims tried separately, ruled for the Moreharts on those claims, declared the ordinances invalid to the extent they required merger, issued mandate relief, and ordered the county to stop enforcing the challenged provisions and to reconsider the permit application without applying the merger requirement.
- The county appealed; the Court of Appeal reversed, reasoning the Map Act’s merger provisions addressed elimination of lot lines for transactional purposes, while the county’s ordinances were land-use regulations adopted under zoning authority.
- The California Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Do the Subdivision Map Act’s parcel-merger provisions (Gov. Code §§ 66451.10–66451.21) impliedly preempt a county zoning ordinance and permitting practice that require contiguous parcels to be treated as merged as a condition of obtaining a development permit, when the statutory standards and procedures for merger are not met?

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal.
- The Court held that the Subdivision Map Act’s merger article provides the sole and exclusive authority for local-agency-initiated merger of contiguous parcels, and that local governments may not require the functional equivalent of merger through zoning ordinances or permit denials outside the Act’s criteria and procedures.
- The Court concluded Santa Barbara County’s antiquated-subdivision merger requirement conflicted with the Legislature’s merger scheme and was invalid to that extent, restoring the trial court’s judgment granting mandate and declaratory relief on the preemption claims.

## Legal Principles

- Contiguous parcels in common ownership are not merged by operation of law; a local agency may merge such parcels only under the authority, standards, and procedures set out in the Subdivision Map Act’s merger provisions.
- Government Code section 66451.10(b)’s statement that the merger article is the “sole and exclusive authority for local agency initiated merger of contiguous parcels” reflects a statewide decision to limit and standardize when involuntary mergers may occur.
- A local ordinance conflicts with state law, and is impliedly preempted, when it permits what state law forbids, forbids what state law permits, or frustrates the Legislature’s method for regulating a subject addressed by a detailed statutory scheme.
- Courts look to the practical effect of a local measure, not the label attached to it; a zoning rule that requires owners to combine contiguous parcels as a precondition to development operates as a merger in substance.
- Local minimum lot-size, density, and permit-approval tools cannot be used to impose involuntary parcel combination in circumstances that do not satisfy the merger conditions in Government Code section 66451.11 or that bypass the Map Act’s required procedures.

## Conclusion

Morehart holds that the Subdivision Map Act occupies the field of local-agency-initiated merger of contiguous parcels: Santa Barbara County could not deny a development permit or apply zoning density rules in a way that effectively compelled merger of adjoining lots unless the county proceeded under, and satisfied, the Map Act’s merger standards and procedures.


Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara, 7 Cal. 4th 725, 29 Cal. Rptr. 2d 804, 872 P.2d 143 (1994)