How to Combine Two Lots Into a Single Lot

My question involves real estate located in the State of: NJ
Hello, I recently purchased the lot adjacent to my house and I want to build a pole barn on the rear of the property. The town tells me that in order to do this I have to combine the lots and I'm not allowed to put the structure on a lot without a house. Not a huge deal but I'm also told that once I combine I can't subdivide due to a minimum lot size requirement that I don't meet. Also not a big deal since I don't plan on doing that anyway. I would obviously prefer to keep them separate since the new lot is buildable and I could sell it in the future. Still not planning on that but it would be nice to have the option. They say I can apply for a variance and there is a possibility it could be granted. My biggest issue is this. I have a mortgage on my house. This lot is bought free and clear. If I combine the lots I lose that. It gets rolled in and sure it raises my property value (which I'm sure the mortgage company would love) but I no longer own it outright. Should I ever default on my loan they could take that as well. What should I do?

The pole barn is an accessory use to the dwelling in a residential zone. So you are being told correctly (in NJ and dependent on your local zoning) that without a dwelling on the new lot, you can't build the barn if the lots remain separate.

It is also true (in NJ) that when substandard lots (do not conform to current zoning) that are contiguous and come under common ownership, they may merge as a matter of zoning and law. We call it the Merger Doctrine. So you may want to run that by a land use attorney.

I think you know what you have to do if you want the pole barn. A variance is expensive to apply for and with you now owning the contiguous lot, the Board of Adjustment is likely to deny you the variance.

You may have had a chance at the variance to build on your house lot had you not purchased the contiguous lot depending on how non-conforming your lot is. So you helped to put the kibosh on the variance, IMHO.

Quote:

---

Quoting aa7483

---

What should I do?

---

Isn't it obvious?

You decide how badly you want the pole barn.

Then you do what you have to do to get it.

Otherwise you do without it.

Well the reason I bought the lot is because I don't have any room on my current lot to build the pole barn. I believe I was told the cost for the variance is 1250. I imagine I would only pay that if the variance was granted right? I also seen an issue with running electric to the new structure. I highly doubt I can power this thing from my house if its technically on a different property. So obviously it looks like the easiest route is to combine I just don't like the idea of giving my mortgage company rights to the new property.

Quote:

---

Quoting aa7483

---

Well the reason I bought the lot is because I don't have any room on my current lot to build the pole barn. I believe I was told the cost for the variance is 1250. I imagine I would only pay that if the variance was granted right? I also seen an issue with running electric to the new structure. I highly down I can power this thing from my house if its technically on a different property. So obviously it looks like the easiest route is to combine I just don't like the idea of giving my mortgage company rights to the new property.

---

Combining the lots will not necessary mean your mortgage would extend to the whole of the property. You’d need to look at the deed descriptions as well as the mortgage documents to determine that. You might want to run that by a real estate lawyer if this is a significant concern for you.

Its not so much of a concern as far and the possibility of defaulting on the loan and having both properties taken. I don't intend on not paying my mortgage. I just like the idea of owning this asset free and clear. Also, Id be concerned with diminishing the value of the lot by combining. The lot with the house is .25 acres and the new lot is .34. The new lot is buildable. It used to have a house on it

Quote:

---

Quoting aa7483

---

Its not so much of a concern as far and the possibility of defaulting on the loan and having both properties taken. I don't intend on not paying my mortgage. I just like the idea of owning this asset free and clear. Also, Id be concerned with diminishing the value of the lot by combining. The lot with the house is .25 acres and the new lot is .34. The new lot is buildable. It used to have a house on it

---

TM suggested you look at your deed because the "legal description" is specific to the measurements and location of the lot. So, even if your lots get combined, your mortgage contract will still specify a property of specific description and dimensions. That the new "legal description" in the county records differs from the "legal description" in the mortgage contract could actually make it more difficult for the mortgage company to foreclose. I'm just speculating on that last part but it's worth checking out.

Wait! "It used to have a house on it"?

Is there anything left of the house? Foundation? Footings? Slab? Plumbing? Water line? Sewer Line? Electric? Anything? I don't know if that would do anything for you but that's worth checking out.

Oh, I'm pretty sure that you pay the fee up front just to make the filing and you don't get it back if the filing gets denied. Check on that, too.

Yes there was a condemned structue there that was removed prior to me buying the property. House was torn down. Basement walls removed. Going to assume water and sewer lines still there.

Quote:

---

Quoting aa7483

---

Yes there was a condemned structue there that was removed prior to me buying the property. House was torn down. Basement walls removed. Going to assume water and sewer lines still there.

---

I don't know where I'm going with this but if there was prior conforming use...?

The chances that the new lot is conforming in dimension at .34 acres today is slim to none. If the house was not destroyed, the lot would be a non-conforming but still allowed to stay. But since the house was destroyed more than 50%, the non-conforming status ceases and as a separate building lot it would need a variance to replace the house. And if the typical lots in that area are non-conforming in size, the variance would likely be granted.

That is not the case here. You have two undersized contiguous non-conforming to current zoning lots under common ownership. If you want to build on either lot now, the lots would have to merge.

This lot meets the requirements as a buildable lot in my municipality

Would you care to tell us what municipality this is in and what your zoning designation is? At .34 acres I would like to read your zoning ordinances to see if the lot does conform to current zoning.

Where did you get the information that it was a buildable lot? Is that based on zoning or on what you were told by the seller when you bought the lot?

Sure. This is Hammonton NJ. Zone R1. The town tells me it's buildable. If I'm not mistaken minimum lot size is 12500 sq ft. The lot I live on is 10800. The lot I bought is 14000.

Your township's zoning ordinance is available online. Chapter 175, Article XIII, section 175-151 is the R-1 lot requirements. The lot you live on is nonconforming in dimension. It is undersized. The lot you bought is conforming in dimension.

So you could develop the new lot with a house and accessory buildings that comply with the zoning. Your lot however, is nonconforming so you would need a variance for anything you want to build. In addition, it would have to meet all the setbacks ( side and rear yard setbacks). Since your lot is nonconforming, it may be hard to comply.

You only have one option in my opinion. That is to merge the lots (if they don't merge under the Merger Doctrine) as a matter of law.

Here are your options. You develop the new lot as a single family dwelling and make some good money when you sell it and forgo the pole barn. Or you let the lots merge and build your accessory use pole barn if your lot can't meet the zoning requirement for the accessory building.

I served on a Board of Adjustment and a Planning Board in NJ for many years. Under the present circumstances, I would not vote to grant you a variance to build the pole barn on your residential property given that you own the contiguous property where you can likely build what you want as accessory buildings with the merger of the lots.

When these situations arise, the focus is to bring lots into compliance with current zoning. Your lot merging with the contiguous lot accomplishes that.

Quote:

---

Quoting adjusterjack

---

Isn't it obvious?

You decide how badly you want the pole barn.

Then you do what you have to do to get it.

Otherwise you do without it.

---

I think most are missing the intent of the op. He doesn’t want a second house. He wants an outbuilding, effectively, for the house he lives in. He fears putting the entire combined lot in peril should he combine them and (God forbid) default on his existing mortgage.

The question he really needs answered is;

what happens to everything if he combines the lots and should default on the mortgage. Even taxing matters appears to be unsure here but along with him, I have my suspicions the lender may not be able to take the entire combined parcel. I’m certain they couldn’t take it all, well, at least the entire value. It is impossible to partition the property fairly in value. I could see that being a huge problem. I could also see a possibility where the lots are severed. Since the small lot is already an existing non-conforming use I could see it being possible it could return to same. You then have a non-conforming lot with outbuilding and no house. Not sure what the municipality would do there. Regardless the lender is legally entitled to only what is granted as security in the mortgage or trust deed. The larger lot and outbuilding is not part of that.



Maybe the town would be open to a variance for a non-conforming use of an outbuilding without residence if it is agreed should the lots ever come under seperate ownership the outbuilding is razed or a residence must be built within a defined time period (around here I can out an outbuilding on a barren lot but only if there is intent to build a residence. The temp conformity issue is allowe for 2 years only).


Maybe op should speak with a local attorney to see what would/could happen if the lots were combined and the worst possibility become s reality and the lender foreclose on the smaller lot.

I spoke with the zoning secretary in person today. She doesn't seem to think that getting this variance to build the pole barn will be an issue. The house that was on it was in very very poor shape and it was an eyesore. I'm seeking to beautify the property. I'd like to keep it separate. Who knows I may want to give the lot to one of my kids some day to build a house on. Once they are merged I can't subdivide. Im scheduled to go in front of the board in a month. Worse they can say is no and I proceed with merging the lots.

JK is correct. I have no need for another residence. I know my options. Merge lots or keep them separate if the town will grant a variance. The main reason I bought the lot is because I lack sufficient space on my lot to build the pole barn (and to create a horshoe driveway. I really just want to know the pros and cons leagally finally tax wise etc.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Maybe the town would be open to a variance for a non-conforming use of an outbuilding without residence if it is agreed should the lots ever come under seperate ownership the outbuilding is razed or a residence must be built within a defined time period (around here I can out an outbuilding on a barren lot but only if there is intent to build a residence. The temp conformity issue is allowe for 2 years only).

---

JK, A non-conforming use and a non-conforming lot are two different things. A non-conforming lot is one that does not meet current zoning in dimension. It is undersized, or the impervious surface area is over the allowable area, or some performance standard is not in conformance with the current zoning as to setbacks, etc.

A non-conforming use is a use that was established before the current zoning was passed. An example would be that a business was established in a residential zone before the zoning ordinance said you could not have a business in a residential zone. The use of the property is non-conforming. In this case, OP has his house on a non-conforming lot. It does not meet the current zoning for lot size in the R-1 zone. The lot he bought is conforming in dimension according to current zoning. OP's house lot is non-conforming in dimension. What he could do on his house lot is something that the Board of Adjustment would decide and issue a variance or not. I don't have a crystal ball to know what the Board would do.

Quote:

---

Quoting aa7483

---

I spoke with the zoning secretary in person today. She doesn't seem to think that getting this variance to build the pole barn will be an issue.

---

Basically that doesn't mean squat. The municipality has the right to merge the lots. Read this case decided by the NJ Supreme Court.

Quote:

---

Quoting budwad

---

JK, A non-conforming use and a non-conforming lot are two different things. A non-conforming lot is one that does not meet current zoning in dimension. It is undersized, or the impervious surface area is over the allowable area, or some performance standard is not in conformance with the current zoning as to setbacks, etc.

A non-conforming use is a use that was established before the current zoning was passed. An example would be that a business was established in a residential zone before the zoning ordinance said you could not have a business in a residential zone. The use of the property is non-conforming. In this case, OP has his house on a non-conforming lot. It does not meet the current zoning for lot size in the R-1 zone. The lot he bought is conforming in dimension according to current zoning. OP's house lot is non-conforming in dimension. What he could do on his house lot is something that the Board of Adjustment would decide and issue a variance or not. I don't have a crystal ball to know what the Board would do.





Basically that doesn't mean squat. The municipality has the right to merge the lots. Read this case decided by the NJ Supreme Court.

---

Yes, non-conforming use is what i said and meant. I’m talking about the outbuilding on the otherwise vacant r-1 lot. That makes it a non-conforming use.

I'm not trying to get a variance to do anything on my non conforming house lot. I'm trying to get a use variance for my conforming vacant lot.

Quote:

---

Quoting aa7483

---

I'm not trying to get a variance to do anything on my non conforming house lot. I'm trying to get a use variance for my conforming vacant lot.

---

The vacant lot is non-conforming? I thought it was buildable which makes it conforming but the use would be non-conforming (outbuilding on an otherwise vacant lot). The lot where the house is is non-conforming since it is too small to build on under current rules.

Did i misunderstand something there?

i do see where I have a jumble of terms in my original post. Sorry about that.

New lot- conforming seeking non-conforming use

lot with House- non-conforming due to too small to build on under current rules.

You have it right. My new lot is buildable. Me wanting to put a garage on it without a primary residence is the hang up.

Another option might be a lot line adjustment.

If the minimum conforming lot size is 12,500 sf, and your adjoining lots total 24,800 sf, you are theoretically within a couple thousandths of an acre per lot of having two conforming lots.
It's well within the margin of error of many years ago and possibly within the margin of error today. Since I have no idea of the layout of your lots I have no idea if this could actually work for you.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Yes, non-conforming use is what i said and meant. I’m talking about the outbuilding on the otherwise vacant r-1 lot. That makes it a non-conforming use.

---

In the State of NJ, we have the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) that gives the power to the municipalities power to zone, plan, grant variances, subdivide, etc. If you want to understand how it works in NJ, I suggest that you read it.

A variance is not at the whim of the board of adjustment or the planning board. It is controlled strictly by law to ensure that zoning and master plans are followed. We basically have two types of variances; a c (1) which is for hardship when a lot doesn't meet the zoning standards and a c (2) for special circumstances when the variance will further the intent of the zoning and benefit the community. That is stating it very simplistically. Here is one case that will shed some light on it if you care to read it.

So when I look at what OP has posted I see nothing of a hardship or a special circumstance that would warrant the granting of a variance.

OP has a lot that conforms in dimension to the zoning. The building of a pole barn (that would normally be an accessory structure to a dwelling in this zone) on a vacant lot without the lot being developed as a residential lot is not something that is a hardship or a special circumstance under the MLUL. But that doesn't mean that board of adjustment will necessarily deny the variance. But it does mean that the granting of the variance can be challenged and rendered void if someone in the neighborhood does challenges it. I think that it would be contrary to the intent of the zoning not to have the property developed as a residential lot if kept separate.

There is no hardship, so I'm guessing that it would have to be a c(2) variance. I would love to read the memorializing resolution that grants this variance (if it is granted). He would need 5 out of 7 member to vote for it. The Board's attorney will verse the members on the law before the vote. And since this municipality is the Pine Lands, I'm sure the follow the law to the letter.

Time will tell and I hope OP comes back and tells us what the outcome is.

My money is on merger of the lots as a condition of the issuance of a building permit for the barn and the variance denied.

Thanks for all the assistance but again, I came here to seek advice on the pros and cons of keeping the lots separate vs. combining them. I'm going to ask for a variance. Worst thing that can happen is they say no and I merge the lots anyway. For the cost of some certified letters to the neighbors I don't have much to loose..

I'm just giving you my prospective on the matter. I hope it works out for you and please come back and let us know what happens.

Quote:

---

For the cost of some certified letters to the neighbors I don't have much to loose..

---

And the cost of the application.

You should consult with a land use attorney before you file to see what they think about it.

Quote:

---

Quoting budwad

---

In the State of NJ, we have the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) that gives the power to the municipalities power to zone, plan, grant variances, subdivide, etc. If you want to understand how it works in NJ, I suggest that you read it.

A variance is not at the whim of the board of adjustment or the planning board. It is controlled strictly by law to ensure that zoning and master plans are followed. We basically have two types of variances; a c (1) which is for hardship when a lot doesn't meet the zoning standards and a c (2) for special circumstances when the variance will further the intent of the zoning and benefit the community. That is stating it very simplistically. Here is one case that will shed some light on it if you care to read it.

So when I look at what OP has posted I see nothing of a hardship or a special circumstance that would warrant the granting of a variance.

OP has a lot that conforms in dimension to the zoning. The building of a pole barn (that would normally be an accessory structure to a dwelling in this zone) on a vacant lot without the lot being developed as a residential lot is not something that is a hardship or a special circumstance under the MLUL. But that doesn't mean that board of adjustment will necessarily deny the variance. But it does mean that the granting of the variance can be challenged and rendered void if someone in the neighborhood does challenges it. I think that it would be contrary to the intent of the zoning not to have the property developed as a residential lot if kept separate.

There is no hardship, so I'm guessing that it would have to be a c(2) variance. I would love to read the memorializing resolution that grants this variance (if it is granted). He would need 5 out of 7 member to vote for it. The Board's attorney will verse the members on the law before the vote. And since this municipality is the Pine Lands, I'm sure the follow the law to the letter.

Time will tell and I hope OP comes back and tells us what the outcome is.

My money is on merger of the lots as a condition of the issuance of a building permit for the barn and the variance denied.

---

You’re not telling me anything new. Unless you personally know the people that operate this specific municipality you can cite state level rules all day long but innthe and, municipalities often do act as they wish. I’ve seen municipalities interpret codes as they choose. Sometimes it is a realistic interpretation. Sometimes it’s really pushing what makes sense but in the end, they make their decision.



You can put your money wherever you wish. Ive worked with enough small municipalities to know there is no sure thing. As the op stated; the worst they can say is no but it won’t hurt to try.

Ok, I will leave it there. But you really don't get it. In NJ the MLUL is the law and municipalities don't get to do what they wish if it is contrary to the law. This is not hick town, USA where you seem to have your experiences.