As a condition of subdivision map approval and an encroachment permit in 1989, Prout agreed to dedicate a 20 foot-wide strip of land along the side of his subdivision-to-be where it abutted a public highway.  Prout recorded a subdivision map showing the dedication, but he never formally deeded the property to the state.  In 2010, CalTrans expanded the highway adjoining the subdivision, occupying the dedicated but undeeded strip.  Prout sued for inverse condemnation.  Held:  Prout sued too late to challenge the dedication condition as an improperly forced taking.  The time to challenge that decision by a mandate petition began in 1989 when the condition was imposed.  Also, the trial court properly found that Prout had impliedly dedicated the strip to CalTrans by recording the subdivision map showing it and by promising to dedicate the strip.  CalTrans impliedly accepted the dedication when it used the strip in 2010.  Its 20-year delay in acceptance was not unreasonable in light of its excuse (it lost track of the lack of a formal deed of dedication) and did not exceed the statutory 25-year limit under Civ. Code 771.010.

California Court of Appeal, Third District (Hull, J.); December 18, 2018 (modified January 16, 2019; 2019 Cal. App. LEXIS 51); 31 Cal. App. 5th 200