Non-Conforming Status by Prescription in Subdivision Regulation Enforcement

Introduction

James and Kim McCormick own a 128.75-acre tract in Bossier Parish, Louisiana, accessed by a ten-foot-wide private driveway. This driveway crosses their land and serves adjacent properties under a 1979 recorded servitude. In 2014 the McCormicks acquired their tract via a “split-out” deed that failed to comply with parish subdivision plat requirements. When they applied for a building permit in late 2020, the Bossier Parish Police Jury (“BPPJ”) denied it, citing subdivision-code and public-street-access provisions. The McCormicks sued for mandamus; the trial court ordered issuance subject to conditions. The Second Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed issuance but removed the conditions. On writ of certiorari, the Louisiana Supreme Court considered whether prescription had run on the subdivision-regulation violation and, if so, whether the tract enjoys non-conforming status mandating a permit.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court held that under La. R.S. 9:5625(A)(1) the five-year prescriptive period for enforcing subdivision regulations began on March 10, 2014—the date the non-compliant deed was recorded. By March 10, 2019, prescription accrued and, under subsection B, the property attained non-conforming status. Once non-conforming status exists, the BPPJ may no longer withhold a building permit on subdivision-compliance grounds. The Court thus affirmed the court of appeal’s judgment ordering issuance of the permit, free of any additional conditions. It also confirmed that the tract satisfied the public-street-access requirement of La. R.S. 33:116.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

La. R.S. 9:5625 (A)(1)–(B): Establishes a five-year prescriptive period for enforcement of zoning, building, and subdivision regulations, and grants non-conforming status once prescription runs.
State v. Baudier, 334 So.2d 197 (La.1976): Prescription runs from the act violating the restriction, not from notice.
Bryan v. City of Shreveport, 519 So.2d 328 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1988): “First act” is the occurrence of the violation itself.
Compass Energy Operating, LLC v. Robena Prop. & Royalty Co., Ltd., 265 So.3d 1160 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2019) and Thomas v. Lewis, 475 So.2d 52 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1985): Reinforce that enforcement actions must be timely.
Benjamin v. Zeichner, 113 So.3d 197 (La. 2013) and Stobart v. State, 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993): Standards for statutory interpretation and appellate review of factual findings.
Phillips v. Parker, 483 So.2d 972 (La. 1986): Limits the public-records doctrine and constructive-knowledge theories.

Legal Reasoning

The Court applied de novo review to La. R.S. 9:5625’s plain language. Subsection A(1) mandates that an enforcement action must be brought “within five years from the first act constituting the commission of the violation.” The unapproved recordation of the split-out deed on March 10, 2014, was that “first act.” The Court rejected the BPPJ’s argument that prescription should await actual notice or clerical review of the deed, explaining that the statute contains no “notice” or “discovery” qualifier. Under subsection B, once five years elapsed, the property “enjoy[s] the same legal status” as non-conforming uses under zoning law—i.e., the tract became grandfathered and immune from subdivision-compliance enforcement through withholding of permits.

The Court further held that La. R.S. 33:116’s requirement of public-street access was satisfied: the McCormick Tract abuts Modica Lott Road, a public highway. Therefore, no additional public-street-dedication condition could lawfully be imposed.

Impact

This decision provides clarity and certainty for landowners and local authorities. It fixes the prescriptive period at the moment of statutory non-compliance, discouraging regulatory bodies from delaying enforcement in hopes of later action. Local governments must enforce subdivision regulations within five years of a violation or forfeit enforcement rights and allow non-conforming status. For practitioners, the case underscores the importance of monitoring deed recordings and acting swiftly on subdivision-code infractions. On a broader level, the ruling reinforces legislative primacy: courts may not graft notice requirements onto unambiguous statutory text.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Prescription: A statutory deadline (here, five years) within which a government must bring an enforcement action.
Non-conforming status: A grandfathering doctrine that protects pre-existing uses or conditions once prescription runs.
Subdivision regulations: Local rules governing how large tracts of land may be split and recorded.
Constructive knowledge: The legal assumption that anyone is deemed to know the content of public records—but it does not delay prescription under La. R.S. 9:5625.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Louisiana’s ruling in McCormick v. Ford establishes a firm rule: enforcement of subdivision-regulation violations must commence within five years of the first non-compliant act, without regard to notice. Upon accrual of prescription, the affected property obtains non-conforming status, and building permits may not be withheld on that basis. This decision secures predictability for landowners and sets a clear deadline for parishes and municipalities to police subdivision compliance.