Facts: A Classic Case Of Inverse Condemnation

Facts re: Inverse Condemnation, Classic Situation

These are important points to make:
1. I never received any notice of any certificate of compliance requirement, nor of any alleged "unlawful division" of my property during the 25 years I owned it until about a month ago when a loan I was seeking was turned down due to this requirement.

2.I acquired the property in 1983, by deed, as two separate parcels, with respective APNs ending in 27 and 28. The front lot, parcel 27, had a small house on it. I rented that house for some years. The back lot, parcel 28, was a vacant lot. In 1998 I sold the front lot, 27, to a married couple, the McNultys. When that sale was made, the city made no mention of any unlawful division nor of any certificate of compliance demand. Had I known of that problem, I would not have sold the front lot, but would kept them both so the two could be merged and such alleged "unlawfulness" eliminated naturally with no cost or loss. The city's failure to inform me at that time has damaged me greatly now. The title search that was done by Continental Title reported nothing negative at all to me.

3. Since I acquired the property, the zone has been changed twice. Originally residential zone, the zone was changed to commercial light some years ago and this past year to industrial light. Under the industrial light zone, the minimum lot size permitted is 20,000 sq. ft. My lot is only 6100, before sidewalk setbacks. Additionally, no notice was sent to me at all of this zone change. I discovered it only during the process of attempting to get a loan in the past two to three months.

4. No notice was sent to me about the planned or ongoing freeway expansion and the elimination of the freeway onramp that was very near my property. This directly affects the value of my property, yet no notice was given to me. Again, I discovered it when I visited the property for the first time in recent years, when I was astonished to see the enormous development surrounding my property, including the improvements in the Inland Center Mall directly on the other side of the freeway from my property and a planned carwash one parcel from mine.

5. I also recently discovered ( in the past week) that the McNultys made a deed of conveyance to two other parties on two separate occasions to my vacant lot, parcel 28, and that it was recorded. This was an illegal conveyance, as the McNultys did not own that parcel; in fact that parcel had expressly been excluded from their purchase of the front parcel in the deed given to them. I am the rightful owner of parcel 28 and have been billed and have paid the property taxes all these years. The people in the front parcel believe the conveyance that McNulty gave to them made them the owner of my lot 28.. but that belief is questionable. There is no indication of any title company involved in those conveyances, the people have not been paying the taxes on my lot, and they have never used it nor put anything on the lot. It would appear to me that they are part of a scam and they know full well they have no claim to my parcel 28. McNulty could not sell what she never owned. For some reason, the city did not make any compliance demands of the McNultys when they illegally made conveyances of a parcel they did not own.

When I asked a city planner if the owner of the front parcel, 27, would be subject to the same compliance demand, he said "yes, he would be hit with it when he tries to do anything with the property." He had formerly told me the city has no way to know which properties are subject to the compliance demand until they attempt to do a conveyance or development. I asked if that owner knew of the compliance requirement, and he said "No, he has not been notified yet." So.. once again, if what he says is not a direct lie (which I suspect it is) the city is deliberately failing to notify a property owner of a requirement that directly affects the value of their property. Just as the city failed for 25 years to notify me of any such burden or demand.

6. For months I have tried to resolve this problem. The subdivision map act, that the city claims makes the compliance demand of me, provides for any equitable remedy the city wishes to make in cases where an injustice or no notice has been given to the property owner. The city has the right to waive the fees for any such compliance or to waive the demand entirely. The city has refused to do the just thing, while trespassing on my land without seeking my permission or offering compensation.

I want JUSTICE and I want it NOW !!!