2015 ORS 92.176¹
Validation of unit of land not lawfully established

(1) A county or city may approve an application to validate a unit of land that was created by a sale that did not comply with the applicable criteria for creation of a unit of land if the unit of land:

(a) Is not a lawfully established unit of land; and

(b) Could have complied with the applicable criteria for the creation of a lawfully established unit of land in effect when the unit of land was sold.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1)(b) of this section, a county or city may approve an application to validate a unit of land under this section if the county or city approved a permit, as defined in ORS 215.402 (Definitions for ORS 215.402 to 215.438 and 215.700 to 215.780) or 227.160 (Definitions for ORS 227.160 to 227.186), respectively, for the construction or placement of a dwelling or other building on the unit of land after the sale. If the permit was approved for a dwelling, the county or city must determine that the dwelling qualifies for replacement under the criteria set forth in ORS 215.755 (Other forestland dwellings) (1)(a) to (e).

(3) A county or city may approve an application for a permit, as defined in ORS 215.402 (Definitions for ORS 215.402 to 215.438 and 215.700 to 215.780) or 227.160 (Definitions for ORS 227.160 to 227.186), respectively, or a permit under the applicable state or local building code for the continued use of a dwelling or other building on a unit of land that was not lawfully established if:

(a) The dwelling or other building was lawfully established prior to January 1, 2007; and

(b) The permit does not change or intensify the use of the dwelling or other building.

(4) An application to validate a unit of land under this section is an application for a permit, as defined in ORS 215.402 (Definitions for ORS 215.402 to 215.438 and 215.700 to 215.780) or 227.160 (Definitions for ORS 227.160 to 227.186). An application to a county under this section is not subject to the minimum lot or parcel sizes established by ORS 215.780 (Minimum lot or parcel sizes).

(5) A unit of land becomes a lawfully established parcel when the county or city validates the unit of land under this section if the owner of the unit of land causes a partition plat to be recorded within 90 days after the date the county or city validates the unit of land.

(6) A county or city may not approve an application to validate a unit of land under this section if the unit of land was unlawfully created on or after January 1, 2007.

(7) Development or improvement of a parcel created under subsection (5) of this section must comply with the applicable laws in effect when a complete application for the development or improvement is submitted as described in ORS 215.427 (Final action on permit or zone change application) (3)(a) or 227.178 (Final action on certain applications required within 120 days) (3)(a). [2007 c.866 §2]

Note: 92.176 (Validation of unit of land not lawfully established) was added to and made a part of 92.010 (Definitions for ORS 92.010 to 92.192) to 92.192 (Property line adjustment) by legislative action but was not added to any smaller series therein. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

Notes of Decisions

Due process standards applicable to land use decisions apply to ad­min­is­tra­­tion of subdivision ordinance. Bienz v. City of Dayton, 29 Or App 761, 566 P2d 904 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Due process require­ments for granting of variances are identical regardless of whether variance is area variance or use variance. Bienz v. City of Dayton, 29 Or App 761, 566 P2d 904 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Approval of tentative plan under subdivision ordinance is final order reviewable in writ of review pro­ceed­ing. Bienz v. City of Dayton, 29 Or App 761, 566 P2d 904 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Modifica­tion of sought-after approval of tentative plan must be treated same procedurally as initial applica­tion. Bienz v. City of Dayton, 29 Or App 761, 566 P2d 904 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Owner of parcel unlawfully conveyed without having been parti­tioned could not unilaterally seek to parti­tion parcel from remainder of original prop­erty remaining in separate ownership. Kilian v. City of West Linn, 88 Or App 242, 744 P2d 1314 (1987)

Under statutes in effect in 1981, parti­tioning of land parcel had effect of vacating pre­vi­ous lot lines unless parti­tion map indicates continued existence of parti­tioned lots. Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Develop­ment Co. v. Polk County, 246 Or App 548, 267 P3d 855 (2011)

Law Review Cita­tions

10 WLJ 398, 399 (1974)

Chapter 92

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Standards county may impose for approval of private roads created in parti­tioning land, (1972) Vol 35, p 1230; effect of county zoning ordinances on approved subdivision plat, (1973) Vol 36, p 702; applica­tion of Fasano v. Bd. of County Commrs., decision, (1974) Vol 36, p 960

Law Review Cita­tions

10 WLJ 394-403 (1974)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 92—Subdivisions and Partitions, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors092.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 92, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano092.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.