Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

The Attorney General of Texas November 12, 1980 MARK WHITE Attorney General Honorable Bill Stubblefield Opinion No. w-269 Williamson County Attorney Georgetown, Texas 78626 Re: Whether conveyance of a strip of land requires vacating of an original plat and replatting under article 974a, V.T.C.S. Dear Mr. Stubblefield: You inquire about the application of article 974a, V.T.C.S:, to the conveyance of a strip of land not effected for the purpose of laying out a subdivision or s&urban lots. You infofm us that the original purchasers of a house and lot in the stidivision discovered that the house bed been inadvertently situated approximately one foot from a lot line, in violation of local setback ordinances. The developer owns the adjacent lot and has offered to convey a strip of land along the lot line wide enough to satisfy setback requirements. This conveyance would leave the unsold lot of adequate size for residential construction. You ask the following questions: L Is there a violation of article 974a, V.T.C.S., if the developer conveys the strip of land by metes and bounds? m Main Plaza.suite 4w 2. May sn amendment to the plat be filed to SanA”10”10. TX~78205 reflect the conveyance, and, if so, sbject to what 512,225.4191 procedure? AnEq”alOpPOrf”“~ly/ A recorded s&division plat may not be amended except in con- A,,irmsti”e Employer formsnce with section 5 of article 974a, V.T.C.S. Priolo v. City of Dallas, Action 257 S.W. 2d 947 (Tex. Civ. App. - Dallas 1953, writ reCd n.r.e.); McGraw v. Cit of Dallas, 420 S.W. 2d 793 ‘(Tex. Civ. App. - Dallas 1967, writ rePd iizhmr e v. City of Graham, 287 S.W. 2d 527 (Tex. Civ. App. - Fort Worth 1956, writ rePd n.r.e.). Section 5 of article 974a requires, in cases where lots in a s&division have been sold, that a stidivision plat be vacated, in whole or in part, before an amendment such as you propose can become effective. After a vacation, a conveyance by metes and bounds could be made and a new plat could be filed. Under the circumstances that you Honorable Bill Stubblefield - Page Two (MW-269) describe, a vacation of the part of the plat showing the two affected lots would require the approval of all of the owners of lots in the subdivision. It would seem that a more practical solution to the problem of the violation of the local setback crdinance would be to apply for a variance to the setback requirement. If the variance was granted, there would no longer be a violation. SUMMARY Although a land owner may convey a strip of land by metes and bounds, the plat of the subdivision cannot be amended to reflect that conveyance. It must be vacated and mplatted pursuant to article 974a, V.T.C.S. $f-gg7 Attorney General of Texas JOHN W. FAINTER, JR. First Assistant Attorney General RICHARD E. GRAY III Executive Assistant Attorney General Prepared by Susan Garrison Assistant Attorney General APPROVED: OPINION COMMD’TEE Susan Garrison, Acting Chairman Ralph Aldave Jon Bible Rick Gilpin Bruce Youngblood p. 856