N.M. Stat. Ann. § 47-6-2
As used in the New Mexico Subdivision Act:
M. "subdivision" means the division of a surface area of land, including land within a previously approved subdivision, into two or more parcels for the purpose of sale, lease or other conveyance or for building development, whether immediate or future; but "subdivision" does not include:
History: 1953 Comp., § 70-5-2, enacted by Laws 1973, ch. 348, § 2; 1979, ch. 172, § 1; 1981, ch. 148, § 1; 1995, ch. 212, § 2; 2005, ch. 139, § 1; 2009, ch. 65, § 1; 2013, ch. 96, § 1.
The 2013 amendment, effective June 14, 2013, clarified an exception to the definition of "subdivision", deleted former Paragraph 13 of Subsection M, which excepted the conveyance of a single tract of land within a five-year period; and added Paragraph (13) of Subsection M.
The 2009 amendment, effective June 19, 2009, added Subsection E.
The 2005 amendment, effective June 17, 2005, added a definition of "board of county commissioners", moved the definition of "common promotional plan" in former Subsection M to Subsection B and moved the definition of "final plat" in former Subsection E to Subsection C.
The 1995 amendment, effective July 1, 1996, rewrote the section to such an extent that a detailed comparison would be impracticable.
Family transfer. — Where a partnership of two families divided eighty acres into four twenty-acre parcels and deeded two twenty-acre parcels to each family; each husband then deeded to his wife one twenty-acre tract; the parties then filed a family transfer application pursuant to the Santa Fe County Land Development Code to allow each landowner to deed his or her spouse one-half of each twenty-acre parcel which, if approved, would have resulted in eight ten-acre lots with each lot separately owned by one of the landowners; the Code provided for minimum lot size family transfers and for small lot family transfers; the minimum lot size family transfer provisions had no intent or purpose requirements; the small lot family transfer provisions provided that the purpose of the small lot family transfer was to maintain local cultural values by perpetuating and protecting a traditional method of land transfer within families and imposed requirements to achieve that purpose; and the County Development Review Board denied the landowners’ minimum size lot family transfer application on the ground that the transfer did not meet the intent and purpose of the small lot family transfer provisions of the Code, the Board’s decision was unreasonable and unlawful. Kirkpatrick v. Santa Fe Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 2009-NMCA-110, 147 N.M. 127, 217 P.3d 613.
Mobile home park. — Mobile home park project was a "subdivision" as contemplated by the county's planning and platting ordinance, the New Mexico Subdivision Act, and the village's subdivision ordinances. Sandoval Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs v. Ruiz, 1995-NMCA-023, 119 N.M. 586, 893 P.2d 482.
Mere division of land is not subdivision: there must be proof that at some time prior to alienation, there has been a division of one parcel into five or more, and that the dividing was done so that the smaller parcels could be sold or leased. State ex rel. Anaya v. Select W. Lands, Inc., 1979-NMCA-161, 94 N.M. 555, 613 P.2d 425, cert. quashed, 94 N.M. 675, 615 P.2d 992 (1980).
Owner must manifest fact of division before parcels offered for sale. — The owner must manifest by some overt conduct a clear indication that a division has already taken place before the parcels are offered for sale. State ex rel. Anaya v. Select W. Lands, Inc., 1979-NMCA-161, 94 N.M. 555, 613 P.2d 425, cert. quashed, 94 N.M. 675, 615 P.2d 992 (1980).
Division of lot into two lots was "subdivision". — Seller's division of twenty-acre plot into two ten-acre plots, although allegedly made in order to help buyer acquire financing, was nonetheless a "subdivision" of the property; because seller, as a result, had subdivided the land five times in three years, seller became a "subdivider" within the meaning of former Subsection I, and was therefore subject under this act to the state's action for costs of platting and basic infrastructure. State ex rel. Udall v. Cresswell, 1998-NMCA-072, 125 N.M. 276, 960 P.2d 818, cert. denied, 125 N.M. 147, 958 P.2d 105.
Order not authorized. — Order obtained by attorney general compelling performance by defendant subdividers of a duty that the Act imposes only on a subdivider of a larger subdivision was not authorized under the Act. State ex rel. Stratton v. Alto Land & Cattle Co., 1991-NMCA-146, 113 N.M. 276, 824 P.2d 1078.
County subdivision ordinance applies to RV parks. — New Mexico courts have held that a mobile home park is a subdivision as contemplated by the New Mexico Subdivision Act, 47-6-1 to 47-6-29 NMSA 1978, and other states that have considered the issue have similarly concluded that RV parks and mobile home communities constitute subdivisions; the definition of a "subdivision" in the Eddy County Subdivision Ordinance is almost identical to the one found in the New Mexico Subdivision Act, and therefore the Eddy county subdivision ordinance applies to RV parks and man camps where spaces are leased to members of the public. Applicability of the Eddy County Subdivision Ordinance to RV Parks or Man Camps (11/30/2022), Att'y Gen. Adv. Ltr. 2022-09.
Party dividing land need not own the land outright in fee simple in order to be subdivider; he need only be creating a subdivision. 1978 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 78-19.
Subdivider includes purchaser under executory real estate contract. — The definition of a "subdivider" includes an individual who is a purchaser under an executory real estate contract which provides for rescission or forfeiture for a breach of certain covenants. 1978 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 78-19.
When resubdivision must comply with current subdivision standards. — The later resubdivision or alteration of or amendment to pre-1973 subdivisions must comply with the new, current subdivision standards if such resubdivision activity substantially affects the new regulated areas of concern which are addressed by the new 1973 New Mexico Subdivision Act (i.e., sufficiency of water, quality of water, roads, etc.). 1982 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 82-11.
If the county commission determines that amendments to a pre-1973 plat are merely minor adjustments of boundaries, the amendments fall within the scope of the Subsection I(7) exemption, and no reevaluation under the 1973 New Mexico Subdivision Act is triggered. If the commission concludes, on the other hand, that the plat amendments constitute a major revision of the original subdivision, the 1973 standards apply. In either event, the county commission must examine the proposed amendments to the old plats to make such a determination. 1982 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 82-11.
If proposed alterations to a pre-1973 subdivision involve a wholesale vacating of an entire platted area and subsequent transfer of those vacated lots into a previously unplatted area, such resubdivision efforts rise to the level of an entirely new subdivision which would require the subdivider to apply for subdivision approval under the 1973 New Mexico Subdivision Act as a "new" subdivision. 1982 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 82-11.
Division of lot into four lots not "subdivision". — The division of a lot in an approved subdivision into four or fewer lots by a purchaser does not constitute a "subdivision" under the New Mexico Subdivision Act. 1982 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 82-04.
Division of land upon dissolution of partnership not a subdivision. — A partnership of two individuals subdivided and sold four parcels from within an original tract and retained ownership over the remaining acreage in the name of the partnership. Thereafter the partnership dissolved and the remaining property was divided between the two former partners through an exchange of quit claim deeds. The existing divisions and sales do not now constitute a "subdivision" within the meaning of the act. Only four parcels have been subdivided and sold. Although a further division took place into two parcels upon dissolution of the partnership, such a subdivision would not be for the purpose of sale or lease so long as the parcels are retained by the owners of the original tract. 1977 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 77-22.
Partnership's subdivisions are added to subsequent individual transfers. — However, if either former partner subdivides and sells or leases one more parcel from within the original tract, the entire tract would become a "subdivision" within the meaning of this section. 1977 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 77-22.
County cannot extend "subdivision" time limit beyond three years. — Since this section sets forth a three-year time limit, a county commission cannot, by regulation, extend the definition of "subdivision" to divisions of land over five years. 1981 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 81-02.