Alfano Law Office, PLLC

Alfano Law Office, PLLC
Phone: (603) 856-8411 • Fax (603) 290-5521
4 Park Street, Concord, NH 03301
  • Home
  • Real Estate Law
    • Road Law
    • Commercial Real Estate Law
    • Tax Abatements
    • Business Law
  • Estate Planning
  • About Us
    • Paul J. Alfano, Real Estate Attorney
    • John F. Hayes, Attorney
    • Terrie Harman, Attorney
    • Jim Soucy, Attorney
    • Marissa Schuetz, Attorney
    • Michael D. Cameron, Attorney
    • Privacy Policy
  • Articles
  • Contact Us
    • Directions
  • Road Law Guide
  • NH Tax Abatement
    • Tax Abatement Team
    • Grounds for Abatement
    • Municipal Application
    • Owners of Properties Outside New Hampshire
    • Transfer Tax Allocation
    • Recent Laws and Rulings
  • Resources and Links
    • Allobar Strategies
    • Calendar and Key Dates
    • Equalization Ratio
    • NAPTA
  • Covid-19 Updates
You are here: Home / Real Estate Law / Real Property Law: Lot Consolidation – the New Battleground

Real Property Law: Lot Consolidation – the New Battleground

Originally published in New Hampshire Bar Association News – May 13, 2011 By: Paul Alfano

The regulation of real estate offers a great example of the rub between personal freedom and providing for the good of the whole, and few better flash points exist than ordinances mandating the merger of contiguous, nonconforming lots. A person may think he or she owns two lots, only to discover the lots have been merged without his or her knowledge. This concept has been around a while, but it has come to the fore recently due to a recent Supreme Court decision and legislative activity. A quick history will get you orientated.

 

RSA 674:39-A

 

Passed in 1995, RSA 674:39-a permits owners of contiguous lots to merge the lots voluntarily. Yet this statute did not preclude certain municipalities from involuntarily merging contiguous, nonconforming lots. See Sutton v. Gilford, 160 N.H. 43 (2010).

The court in Sutton upheld a Gilford ordinance requiring the merger of contiguous nonconforming lots having the same owner. The non-conformity needed to relate to size, dimension or frontage only, and merging could continue with additional contiguous lots until the lots became conforming. If all the lots contained preexisting, principal uses, such as houses, they were exempt from the ordinance, but if one of the nonconforming lots were vacant, it would be merged with the contiguous lot. Lots protected by RSA 674:39, the statute grandfathering approved subdivisions for four years under certain circumstances, also were exempt.

The Gilford ordinance was not unique. Property owners have developed a device called “checker boarding” to avoid the effect of these ordinances. The technique simply involves taking title to adjoining, nonconforming lots in different names.

These ordinances also create an interesting dynamic for assessors. A nonconforming lot still has value because the owner could seek a variance to build a house, which would not be difficult under today’s more lenient “hardship” standard. As a result, the total assessed value of two contiguous, nonconforming lots likely is greater than one larger conforming lot. It is interesting to note the municipal appraiser in the Sutton case recommended the lots remain separate. The lots were located on Governor’s Island.

 

Merging Preexisting Parcels

 

Perhaps in response to the Sutton decision (decided March 30, 2010), the General Court enacted a significant change to RSA 674:39-a in 2010. While maintaining the power to merge contiguous lots voluntarily, the new law protected property owners against having lots merged without their consent. The new language, and current statute, reads as follows: “No city, town, county, or village district may merge preexisting subdivided lots or parcels except upon the consent of the owner.” The effective date was September 18, 2010.

 

Further Change via HB352

 

One way municipalities are responding to the 2010 change is to limit the effect of involuntary merger ordinances to lots acquired after September 18, 2010, which probably is consistent with the statute. If a person owned two contiguous, nonconforming lots on, say, September 17, 2010, those lots would have merged automatically that same day (presumably – see below), assuming the ordinance mandated immediate merger. On September 18, that person would not have owned two lots, but one. Therefore, the 2010 change would apply only to contiguous lots acquired September 18, 2010 or after.

The General Court is tinkering further with RSA 674:39-a this year. House Bill 352 would add the following new language:

Lots or parcels that were merged prior to September 18, 2010 by a city, town, county, village district, or any other municipality without the express consent of the owner, shall at the request of the owner, be restored to their premerger status and all zoning and tax maps shall be updated to identify the premerger boundaries of said lots or parcels as recorded at the appropriate registry of deeds.

At least one town is proposing a change to its ordinance that would permit persons whose lots were merged to be restored to their pre-merger state, subject to planning board approval. House Bill 352 does not require planning board approval. If both pass, the statute would take precedence and planning board approval would not be required in that town.

Even if these changes are passed, questions still remain. For example, on what date does a merger occur? Immediately upon taking title? The court in Sutton was asked only to affirm whether a merger had taken place at all, and found that showing the lots in question as one on the town tax map was evidence of a merger. Yet the tax map alone may not have been sufficient. The court pointed to other factors as well, including a prior lawsuit involving the same land where the property owner recognized the land as a single lot.

If no procedural requirements exist, such as notice to the taxpayer, and the tax map is not yet changed, what effect should the ordinance have on prospective purchasers? A prudent buyer should check the ordinance and make a decision using his or her judgment. Even a letter written by the Director of Planning and a pre-litigation agreement entered into with the board of selectmen stating that two lots have not been consolidated cannot override the effect of these ordinances. See, e.g. Sutton.

Given both the General Court and municipalities are addressing the issue of lot consolidations at the same time, and given the inherent delay in the ability of municipalities to respond to changes in state laws, this topic is ripe for uncertainty. Keep an eye on both HB 352 and any ordinance with which you may be working. House Bill 352 has been sent to “study” by the House Municipal and County Government Committee, meaning it has a good chance of being killed, although it could re-appear. Some municipalities may have amended their ordinances to incorporate the 2010 changes by now, while others may not have.

Filed Under: Real Estate Law

The above information is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Important Registry Updates
Important Court Updates

Subscribe to the Alfano Law Property Rights Alert

Sign Up Now

For Email Newsletters you can trust.
Allobar Strategies

NH Tax Abatement

  • Road Law Guide
  • NH Tax Abatement
    • Tax Abatement Team
    • Grounds for Abatement
    • Municipal Application
    • Owners of Properties Outside New Hampshire
    • Transfer Tax Allocation
    • Recent Laws and Rulings
  • Resources and Links
    • Allobar Strategies
    • Calendar and Key Dates
    • Equalization Ratio
    • NAPTA
  • Covid-19 Updates

NH Real Estate Law Articles

  • Court Updates
  • Covid-19
  • Estate Planning
  • General
  • Legislation
  • New Hampshire Property Tax Alerts
  • Property Investments
  • Property Tax Law
  • Real Estate Law
  • Road Law
  • Taxes

Recent News Letters

March 2020

December 2019

November 2019

October 2019

August 2019

July 2019

May 2019

Recent Articles

March 1 is the Deadline to Request a Refund of New Hampshire Property Taxes

March 1, 2021 is the deadline to challenge your 2020 real … [Read More...]

NHPVRTA SUBMITS DRAFT OF NEW BILL ON PRIVATE ROADS TO THE NH SENATE

New Hampshire Private Road Taxpayers Alliance (NHPVRTA) is a … [Read More...]

Understanding Commercial Site Planning in New Hampshire

Obtaining a rezoning of property to a commercial zoning … [Read More...]

Penn Central Regulatory Takings Claims in New Hampshire

State and local government entities have the ability to use … [Read More...]

Article Archives

  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • October 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • June 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • June 2013
  • February 2012
  • December 2011
  • May 2011
  • July 2010
  • December 2005
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

Alfano Law Office, PLLC, 4 Park Street, Concord, NH 03301 USA | Phone: (603) 856-8411
Copyright © 2021 · Alfano Law Office, PLLC. All Rights Reserved · Website design by InterActive Synergy, LLC

Sign up to receive our FREE Road Law Guide

Everything you need to know about navigating public and private road laws in New Hampshire.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.