Click here to skip to main content.
scenic picture from Washington state
Subjects › Planning › Subdivisions
Reviewed 11/2011

Subdivisions

Contents

Introduction

The subdivision of land into lots is governed in Washington State by chapter 58.17 RCW and by city and county ordinances adopted under that chapter's authority. Chapter 58.17 RCW establishes two subdivision types that are regulated differently:

  • "Subdivisions," which are defined as the "division or redivision of land into five or more lots, tracts, or parcels, sites, or divisions for the purpose of sale, lease, or transfer of ownership" (RCW 58.17.020(1)); and
  • "Short subdivisions," which are defined as the "division or redivision of land into four or fewer lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or divisions for the purpose of sale, lease, or transfer of ownership" (RCW 58.17.020(6)).

Any city or town may increase the number of lots that can be regulated as short subdivisions up to a maximum of nine. Counties planning under the Growth Management Act may do the same with respect to unincorporated land within an urban growth area.

"Plats" and "short plats" are the maps or representations of subdivisions and short subdivisions respectively that show the division of land into lots and the streets, alleys, dedications, easements, etc. RCW 58.17.020(2).

Subdivisions, other than short subdivisions, are to be regulated by cities and counties according to the procedures set out in chapter 58.17 RCW. So, local ordinances adopting subdivision procedures must conform to the procedures set out in chapter 58.17 RCW. The statutory procedures involve a two-step process for the approval of subdivisions, "preliminary plat" approval followed by "final plat" approval. Compliance with local ordinances such as those dealing with zoning, road standards, shorelines, utilities, and drainage is required for subdivision and short subdivision approval. See RCW 58.17.110.

Preliminary plats

Preliminary plat review is a quasi-judicial process that involves initial review and hearing by the city or county planning commission or agency, which then makes a recommendation to the city council or board of county commissioners or county council. RCW 58.17.100; see RCW 42.36.010 for a definition of quasi-judicial land use actions. A city or county may establish a hearing examiner system as an alternative to having a planning commission or agency hear and issue recommendations for preliminary plat approval. RCW 58.17.330. Unless the applicant requests otherwise, a preliminary plat must be processed simultaneously with applications for accompanying rezones, variances, planned unit developments, site plan approvals, and similar quasi-judicial or administrative actions to the extent that the procedural requirements for those actions allow for simultaneous processing.

Preliminary plats must be approved, disapproved, or returned to the applicant for modification within 90 days of the filing of the plat application, unless the applicant consents to an extension. RCW 58.17.140.

A city or county may not approve a preliminary plat unless the city council, board of county commissioners or county council, or hearing examiner, as the case may be, makes written findings regarding certain matters identified in RCW 58.17.110, including open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, and playgrounds.

Final plats

Following preliminary plat approval, the applicant has seven years in which to submit the plat for final approval, though a city or county may adopt procedures for extensions of that time period. (This seven-year period for submission of a final plat is temporary, until December 31, 2014, after which the period will be five years.  See "New Legislation Extends Time Period for Final Plat Approval.")  Final plat approval, which must be made by the legislative body (RCW 58.17.100), is in the nature of a ministerial, non-discretionary process; that is, if the applicant meets the terms of preliminary approval and the plan conforms with state law and local ordinances, final approval must be granted. RCW 58.17.170. There is no public hearing for a final plat approval. Among the statutory requirements for final plat approval are: recommendation for approval by the local health department or the agency that would be furnishing sewer and water; approval by the city or county engineer; a complete survey; and certification that all taxes and delinquent assessments for the property have been paid. See RCW 58.17.150; RCW 58.17.160; RCW 58.17.165. Final plats must be approved, disapproved, or returned to the applicant for modification within 30 days of the filing of the short plat application, unless the applicant consents to an extension. RCW 58.17.140.

Lots in a subdivision cannot be sold until final plat approval is obtained and the plat is recorded with the county auditor. RCW 58.17.195. Before filing with the county auditor, approved final plats must be submitted to the county assessor for "the sole purpose of assignment of parcel, tract, block and or lot numbers," if the county assessor has adopted an "assessor's plat" for the county. RCW 58.18.010. Approved final plats are "vested" with respect to the conditions of plat approval and with respect to applicable laws for a period of seven years from final plat approval, except when "a change in conditions creates a serious threat to the public health or safety in the subdivision." RCW 58.17.170.  (This seven-year period is also temporary, until December 31, 2014, after which it become five years.)

Short plats

No process is set out in state law for approval of short plats; cities and counties are required by RCW 58.17.060 to adopt by ordinance their own regulations and procedures that provide "summary approval" of short plats through an administrative process. Because it must be an administrative process, there is no public hearing for a short plat application, and the legislative body is not involved in the process. To approve a short plat, the administrative personnel assigned to review short plat applications must make the same written findings in RCW 58.17.110 that are required for plat applications. Short plats must be approved, disapproved, or returned to the applicant for modification within 30 days of the filing of the short plat application, unless the applicant consents to an extension. RCW 58.17.140. They must be filed with the county auditor and are not deemed "approved" until such filing. RCW 58.17.065. And, as with final plats, approved short plats must be submitted to the county assessor before filing with the county auditor. RCW 58.18.010. No limitation on the vesting period exists with respect to approved short plats as there is for final plats. See Noble Manor v. Pierce County, 133 Wn.2d 269, 281-82 (1997)

Exemptions

Certain land divisions are exempt from state subdivision laws. See RCW 58.17.040. These exempt divisions include burial plots, divisions into lots above a certain size, those "made by testamentary provisions, or the laws of descent," boundary line adjustments (no additional lots created), divisions for industrial or commercial use when a binding site plan is approved, divisions for leasing lots for mobile homes when a binding site plan is approved, and divisions where a portion of the property is developed as a condominium (and certain other requirements, including a binding site plan, are met).

RCW 58.17.035 authorizes cities and counties to, by ordinance, establish procedures for use of a binding site plan as an alternative to the subdivision process for the divisions identified in RCW 58.17.040 that require approval of a binding site plan to be exempt.

Legal References

Statutes

Selected Court Decisions

  • Friends of Cedar Park Neighborhood v. City of Seattle, 156 Wn. App. 633 (2010). To meet the city's minimum lot size requirement, two lots in the proposed short plat were connected to an unbuildable environmentally sensitive area by two six-inch strips of land The court rejected the argument that the short plat's “bizarre” lot configuration contravenes the intent and purpose of the city's minimum lot size requirement and does not meet the city code requirement that the city consider whether “the public use and interests are served by permitting the proposed division of land.”  The court rejected that argument on the basis that, because the proposed subdivision met the requirements of the city code, the city lacked the authority to deny the proposal solely based on the unusual configuration of the lots. Where the application is consistent with applicable regulations, the application may not be denied on the basis that it does not satisfy “public use and interests.”
  • Nagle v. Snohomish County, 129 Wn. App. 703 (2005). The county was correct when it rejected the owner's request for innocent purchaser status under RCW 58.17.210, because the finding that the owner had "actual knowledge or notice" that the property was illegally subdivided was supported by the record and controlling law. "Innocent purchaser for value without actual notice" of an illegal subdivision of property is one who had given valuable consideration without express knowledge of the subdivision of the property.
  • HJS Development, Inc. v. Pierce County, 148 Wn.2d 451 (2003). Cities and counties have authority under state subdivision law to revoke preliminary plat approvals if a local ordinance provides that authority. "[W]hen conditions of approval of a preliminary plat cannot be satisfied or are deliberately violated, remedial action, such as revocation, may be the only remedy."
  • City of Seattle v. Crispin, 149 Wn.2d 896 (2003). A reconfiguration of boundary lines without the creation of additional lots is a boundary line adjustment that does not require approval under state or local subdivision laws. The fact that a new buildable site is created does not prevent application of the boundary line adjustment exemption found at RCW 58.17.040(6).
  • Harrison v. Stevens County, 115 Wn. App. 126, review denied, 149 Wn.2d 1031 (2003). When the mineral rights to real property are reserved or granted to a party other than the holder of the fee title, the title to the surface and the title to the mineral rights are severed and ownership of the surface becomes separate and distinct from ownership of the mineral rights. Thus, the signature of owner of mineral rights in that circumstance was not required on the surface owners' short plat application to subdivide their property.
  • Howe v. Douglas County, 146 Wn.2d 183 (2002). Where local governments must, by law, accept streets, public areas, and other improvements constructed by a private developer, they may limit their liability for harms caused by the private developer. That is precisely what RCW 58.17.165 requires, and impliedly what it authorizes. However, RCW 58.17.165 is limited to certain circumstances: to plat subdivisions subject to a dedication; to damage occasioned to the "adjacent land"; to roads and the associated drainage systems; and to that infrastructure at the time it is dedicated to the local government.
  • Westside Business Park v. Pierce County, 100 Wn. App. 599 (2000). A developer has a vested right to the storm-water drainage regulations in effect at the time of application for short plat approval even though the application does not reveal the proposed use, as long as the county knows of the intended use and accepts the application as complete.
  • Benchmark Land Co. v. City of Battle Ground, 94 Wn. App. 537 (1999). A preliminary plat application is not "approved" until the local legislative body giving its approval enters a written decision that includes findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by RCW 58.17.100. An oral decision is not binding. Also, a local ordinance generally requiring subdivision developers to improve the streets fronting their proposed developments as a standard regulation of new subdivisions does not absolve the local jurisdiction of its duty to conduct a site-specific inquiry into whether and to what extent a proposed subdivision will impact an adjoining street before it may condition preliminary plat approval of the subdivision on the developer's making specified street improvements.
  • Noble Manor v. Pierce County, 133 Wn.2d 269 (1997). A developer's submission to the county of a completed short plat application vested in the developer the right to divide and develop the property in the manner disclosed in the short plat application under the land use and zoning laws in effect on the date the application was filed. Unlike other subdivisions, a short plat's vested rights do not divest under RCW 58.17.170 after five years.
  • Schneider Homes, Inc. v. City of Kent, 87 Wn. App. 774 (1997), review denied, 134 Wn.2d 1021 (1998). When a developer submits its completed preliminary plat application to a county, it becomes entitled to have not only that application, but also its companion PUD application, considered under the county ordinances then in effect on the land, even where the land is annexed by a city in the interim. Vested rights survive annexation of the land by a city.
  • Strauss v. City of Sedro-Woolley, 88 Wn. App. 376 (1997), review denied, 135 Wn.2d 1002 (1998). The owners of a mobile home park sought to convert the park into condominiums without complying with state and local binding site plan regulations. The state court of appeals held that property may not be subdivided to create legal lots of record for condominiums unless the property is subdivided pursuant to RCW 58.17.033 and RCW 58.17.060 or a binding site plan is filed with and approved by the local governing authority.
  • Friends of the Law v. King County, 123 Wn.2d 518 (1994). The requirement of RCW 58.17.195 that a formal finding of fact be made that a proposed subdivision conforms to existing land use controls is applicable to preliminary plat applications.
  • Estate of Telfer v. Board of County Comm'rs, 71 Wn. App. 833 (1993), review denied, 123 Wn.2d 1028 (1994). To give substantive meaning to the exemption from subdivision requirements in RCW 58.17.040(3) for "[d]ivisions made by . . . the laws of descent," property held in tenancy in common resulting from intestacy is divisible into separate parcels without complying with the platting requirements. It is not necessary that there be a will dividing the property into separate parcels for this exemption to apply; a division of the property by those taking under the residuary clause may be made without complying with platting requirements.
  • Adams v. Thurston County, 70 Wn. App. 471, 855 P.2d 284 (1993). The inclusion of an environmental impact statement (EIS) as a contingent requirement for a fully completed plat application would violate the intent of the subdivision vesting statute, RCW 58.17.033, and frustrate the purpose of the vesting rule.
  • Valley Quality Homes, Inc. v. Bodie, 52 Wn. App. 743 (1988), review denied, 112 Wn.2d 1008 (1989). Where the property in question, consisting of only one parcel, was classified as a "major subdivision" under the applicable city subdivision ordinance because it was over four acres in area, it was, nevertheless, a "short subdivision" rather than a "subdivision" under statutory definitions. Thus final plat approval of the property prior to sale was not required by statute.
  • Halverson v. City of Bellevue, 41 Wn. App. 457 (1985). RCW 58.17.165 requires a certificate of dedication be signed by all parties having any ownership interest in the lands subdivided. "Any ownership interest" is broad enough to include ownership of a portion of the land that is not yet a matter of public record because it was acquired through adverse possession. Once the city was put on notice of an adverse possession claim to part of a proposed subdivision, approval of the subdivision plat was improper.
  • South Hollywood Hills Citizens Ass'n v. King County, 101 Wn.2d 68 (1984). The circumstances involved in a plat approval make personal notice of the public hearing on a preliminary plat application to all property owners who may potentially be affected by the council's action impractical. Thus, RCW 58.17.090's provision that notice may be given by publication in a local newspaper is reasonable under the circumstances. RCW 58.17.090 does provide additional protection to those directly affected by a plat by requiring measures to provide special notice to adjacent property owners be developed by the local authorities.
  • Island County v. Dillingham Dev. Co., 99 Wn.2d 215 (1983). Combining lots and portions of lots by changing boundaries to form larger lots does not result in the creation of additional lots and under RCW 58.17.040(5) is exempt from the platting requirements of chapter 58.17 RCW. Also, tracts larger than five acres each, but which were largely covered by water, were exempt from platting requirements under the exemption for five-acre divisions of land.
  • Crown Cascade, Inc. v. O'Neal, 100 Wn.2d 256 (1983). The county was required under RCW 58.17.210 to issue building and development permits to innocent purchasers of lots that were created in violation of state and local subdivision laws.

Selected Attorney General Opinions

  • AGO 1998 No. 4 - The Growth Management Act (GMA) does not obligate a county to require the replatting or resubdivision of lands in the county that are outside any urban growth area and that were platted before 1937, but it allows local flexibility in applying GMA standards to such lands.
  • AGO 1996 No. 5 - The requirements of chapter 58.17 RCW, enacted in 1969 and relating to platting and subdivisions, apply to land platted before 1937 under chapter 58.08 RCW or its predecessor statutes.
    Cities and towns may accept plats and subdivisions filed pursuant to the 1937 platting act (chapter 58.16 RCW, repealed in 1969), but are not obligated to do so.
  • AGO 1987 No. 8 - King County is not required to allow an appeal to the county council of an administrative decision by the hearing examiner denying a short plat application.
  • AGO 1986 No. 6 - The dividing of a lot in a previously approved subdivision into two halves with the intent that one-half be sold and attached to an adjoining parcel outside the subdivision does not create a boundary line adjustment. Rather, it is the creation of a short subdivision under RCW 58.17.020(6).
  • AGO 1983 No. 31 - Because of the necessity for a legally sufficient description in connection with an offer to sell or the sale of real property, an offer to sell a portion of a larger tract of land, or the execution of a purchase and sale agreement covering such a tract of land, constitutes a "division" of the land under the definition of a "short subdivision" contained in RCW 58.17.020(6) or (7) so as to render applicable the various provisions of chapter 58.17 RCW relating to short plats and short subdivisions.
  • AGLO 1980 No. 31:
    • A county auditor is legally authorized to reject records of survey that do not meet the requirements set forth in chapter 332-130 WAC, chapter 58.09 RCW and chapter 58.17 RCW.
    • A county auditor is required by RCW 58.17.190 -- prior to approval by the appropriate local legislative body -- to refuse to accept for recordation any maps or representations which in fact constitute a "plat" of a "subdivision" required to be filed under chapter 58.17 RCW, and which otherwise contain a survey of such a subdivision.
    • The duties imposed by RCW 58.17.160 on a county engineer involve the performance of the governmental function of approval of data to enable the appropriate legislative body to pass on a proffered plat or replat - and not the conduct of such survey activities as are involved in the platting; accordingly, in carrying out such review functions and granting approval, the county engineer is not engaging in the practice of land surveying.
  • AGO 1980 No. 5 - Where, within an existing subdivision established pursuant to either chapter 58.16 [now repealed] or chapter 58.17 RCW, the owner of an individual lot proposes to divide that lot into four or fewer smaller lots for the purpose of sale or lease, such action will not constitute the establishment of a "short subdivision" as defined in RCW 58.17.020(6); instead, such action will constitute a "resubdivision" and thus be subject to the general provisions of chapter 58.17 RCW relating to subdivisions.
  • AGO 1975 No. 12 - RCW 58.08.040 does not require the payment of a deposit for anticipated property taxes upon the filing, pursuant to regulations adopted under RCW 58.17.060, of a short plat subsequent to May 31 in any year and prior to the date of collection of the taxes.
  • AGLO 1974 No. 7 - The provisions of chapter 58.17 RCW are applicable to the sale of undeveloped lots in an area previously platted under chapter 58.08 RCW.
  • AGO 1971 No. 9 - The notice requirements of RCW 58.17.080 relating to the filing of a preliminary plat of a proposed subdivision adjacent to or within one mile of the municipal boundaries of a city do apply to a proposed subdivision that is located totally within a certain city but is also located within one mile of the municipal boundaries of some one or more other cities.

Documents

City Regulations

  • Bainbridge Island Municipal Code Title 17 - Subdivisions
  • Battle Ground Municipal Code Title 16 - Land Divisions
  • Burlington Municipal Code Title 16 - Subdivisions
  • Camas Municipal Code Title 17 - Land Development
  • Eatonville Municipal Code Title 17 (Adobe Acrobat Document)- Land Subdivisions, Plats and Improvements
  • Edmonds Municipal Code Ch. 20.75 - Subdivisions
  • Maple Valley Municipal Code Ch. 18.90 - Subdivision and Platting
  • Monroe Municipal Code Title 17 - Subdivisions
  • Oak Harbor Ordinance No.1568 (Adobe Acrobat Document) - Adopting new Title 21, Subdivisions, 03/2010
  • Sedro-Woolley Municipal Code Title 16 - Subdivisions
  • Tumwater Municipal Code Title 17 - Land Division
  • Woodinville Municipal Code Title 20 - Subdivisions

County Regulations

  • Clallam County Code Title 29 - Subdivisions
  • Jefferson County Code Ch. 18.35 - Land Divisions
  • King County Code Title 19A () - Land Segregation
  • San Juan County Code Ch. 18.70 - Land Divisions
  • Whatcom County Code Title 21 - Land Division Regulations