When does dividing land outside city limits in Texas require the owner to file a plat?

Texas AG Opinion JM-1100: When Does Dividing Land Outside a City Require a Plat?

Plain-English summary

A plat is the official map of a land division that an owner files with the county so that lots, streets, and public spaces are laid out on the record. A Kendall County attorney asked the Attorney General to settle how far the state's rural platting law reaches. The law, section 232.001(a) of the Local Government Code, applies to an owner who divides a tract outside a city into two or more parts. The county attorney noticed that the statute is written in a way that could be read two different ways, and the difference matters a great deal to anyone splitting rural land.

Read one way, the statute might require a plat any time a tract is divided into a subdivision or an addition, and separately require a plat when land is split into suburban or building lots together with streets or other public parts. Read the other way, the platting requirement kicks in only when the division of the tract, whatever its purpose, also involves laying out streets, alleys, squares, parks, or other parts for public use. Under that second reading, a plain division of a tract that does not lay out any streets or public parts would not require a plat at all.

The Attorney General adopted the second reading. Although the sentence is awkwardly worded, the opinion concluded that the word "and" ties the two halves together: the platting requirement is not triggered unless there is both a division of the tract and a laying out of streets, alleys, squares, parks, or other public parts. The opinion pointed to an earlier opinion, JM-781 (1987), as implicitly supporting that reading.

The opinion also addressed the county attorney's related worry about what counts as a "subdivision," a "suburban lot," or a "building lot," including how small a rural tract can be before it becomes a suburban lot. On that, the opinion declined to draw a bright line. It noted that Texas courts have defined "subdivision" broadly, as simply the division of a tract into smaller parts, but concluded that whether any particular division is a subdivision, an addition, or a laying out of suburban or building lots is a question of fact that has to be decided case by case.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1989. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Section 232.001 of the Local Government Code has been amended several times since 1989, and the platting and subdivision rules for land outside municipal limits (including provisions specific to particular counties and to colonias) have grown considerably. Anyone dealing with a present-day rural land division should work from the current version of chapter 232 of the Local Government Code and check the rules for the specific county rather than relying on the 1989 statute discussed here.

Who this opinion affected (as of 1989)

Rural landowners dividing property: The opinion meant that simply splitting a tract outside a city into two or more parts did not, by itself, require preparing a plat. The platting requirement attached only when the division also laid out streets, alleys, squares, parks, or other parts for public use.

County officials and county attorneys: The opinion gave counties a reading of section 232.001(a) to apply when deciding whether a given rural division triggered the platting requirement, while leaving the harder line-drawing (is this a subdivision, an addition, or suburban or building lots?) to a fact-based, case-by-case judgment.

Buyers of rural lots: Because whether a division was a "subdivision" or a laying out of "suburban" or "building" lots turned on the facts, the opinion signaled that no fixed minimum tract size marked the point at which platting became mandatory.

Common questions

Does splitting rural land into two parts always require a plat in Texas?
Not under this opinion. The Attorney General read section 232.001(a) so that dividing a tract outside a city into two or more parts requires a plat only if the division also lays out streets, alleys, squares, parks, or other parts intended for public use.

What is the "and" that the opinion turned on?
The statute describes dividing a tract to lay out a subdivision, addition, or suburban or building lots, "and to lay out streets, alleys, squares, parks, or other parts." The opinion read that "and" to mean both conditions must be present before a plat is required.

How small can a rural tract be before it counts as a "suburban lot"?
The opinion did not set a size. It concluded that whether a division is a subdivision, an addition, or a laying out of suburban or building lots is a question of fact to be approached case by case.

How did courts define "subdivision" at the time?
Broadly. The opinion cited two Texas appellate decisions holding that "subdivision," as used in a similar former statute, could mean simply the division of a tract of land into smaller parts, or the act of partition itself.

Background and statutory framework

Section 232.001(a) of the Local Government Code governs platting of land divided outside a municipality. It provides that the owner of a tract located outside the limits of a municipality who divides the tract into two or more parts to lay out a subdivision (including an addition), or to lay out suburban lots or building lots, and to lay out streets, alleys, squares, parks, or other parts of the tract intended to be dedicated to public use or for the use of purchasers or owners of lots fronting on or adjacent to those parts, must have a plat of the subdivision prepared.

The county attorney identified two possible readings of that sentence and asked which controlled. The Attorney General concluded the platting requirement is triggered only where there is a division of the tract and the division also involves laying out streets, alleys, squares, parks, or other parts for public use. In reaching that conclusion the opinion relied on the face of the statute, particularly the conjunctive "and," and treated Attorney General Opinion JM-781 (1987) as implicitly supporting the same reading. JM-781 had addressed the platting requirement under the predecessor provisions, article 6702-1, section 2.401, V.T.C.S., which were codified in 1987 as section 232.001. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 1, at 1003. The opinion noted the codified language changed slightly (from land "intended for public use" to land "intended to be dedicated to public use") but that the codification worked no substantive change. Local Gov't Code § 1.001.

On the meaning of "subdivision," "suburban lots," and "building lots," the opinion observed that courts had construed "subdivision" broadly under a similar former statute. City of Lucas v. North Tex. Mun. Water Dist., 724 S.W.2d 811, 823 (Tex. App. - Dallas 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (term "subdivision" as used in former article 970a, section 4, V.T.C.S., "may be simply a division of a tract of land into smaller parts"); City of Weslaco v. Carpenter, 694 S.W.2d 601, 603 (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (term "may refer simply to the act of partition itself"). The opinion declined to decide whether "subdivision of the tract, including an addition" might mean more specifically a "planned development," and concluded that whether a given division is a subdivision, an addition, or a laying out of suburban or building lots would probably involve questions of fact to be resolved case by case.

Citations

Statutory authorities:

• Local Gov't Code § 232.001(a) (platting requirement for a tract divided outside a municipality)
• Local Gov't Code § 1.001 (codification worked no substantive change)
• article 6702-1, section 2.401, V.T.C.S. (predecessor provision, codified 1987 as § 232.001)
• former article 970a, section 4, V.T.C.S. (source of the broad "subdivision" definition in the cited cases)
• Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 1, at 1003 (1987 codification)

Cases:

• City of Lucas v. North Tex. Mun. Water Dist., 724 S.W.2d 811, 823 (Tex. App. - Dallas 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ("subdivision" may be simply a division of a tract into smaller parts)
• City of Weslaco v. Carpenter, 694 S.W.2d 601, 603 (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (term may refer simply to the act of partition itself)

Attorney General opinion referenced:

• JM-781 (1987)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-1100
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1989/jm1100.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor OCR errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

September 22, 1989

Honorable Pamela K. McKay
County Attorney
County of Kendall
204 E. San Antonio Street
Suite 1
Boerne, Texas 78006

Opinion No. JM-1100

Re: Under what circumstances section 232.001 of the Local Government Code requires a tract owner to prepare a plat (RQ-1664)

Dear Ms. McKay:

You ask for our interpretation of the requirements of section 232.001(a) of the Local Government Code in regard to the preparation of a plat by a landowner who divides a tract of land outside the limits of a municipality into two or more parts. Section 232.001(a) provides:

The owner of a tract of land located outside the limits of a municipality who divides the tract into two or more parts to lay out a subdivision of the tract, including an addition, or to lay out suburban lots or building lots, and to lay out streets, alleys, squares, parks, or other parts of the tract intended to be dedicated to public use or for the use of purchasers or owners of lots fronting on or adjacent to the streets, alleys, squares, parks, or other parts must have a plat of the subdivision prepared. (Emphasis added.)

You say that the section can be read in two ways. Under one reading, you say, the language "and to lay out streets, alleys, squares, parks, or other parts," etc., could be taken to apply only where the division is "to lay out suburban lots or building lots." Under such construction, you say, a plat would be required under the subsection either when the tract is divided into two or more parts to lay out a subdivision or addition, or when the land is divided into "suburban lots or building lots" in conjunction with which "streets, alleys, squares, parks, or other parts," as described in the subsection, are to be laid out.

You say that the provisions can also be read to provide that the platting requirement under the subsection is triggered only where there is a division of the tract -- whether to lay out a subdivision, addition, or building or suburban lots -- and where "streets, alleys, squares, parks, or other parts" are to be laid out. Under this reading, as you say, a "division of a tract not involving streets, alleys, etc., would not require platting" under the subsection.

Though we concede that the language in question is somewhat convoluted, we think that this language on its face -- particularly the "and" in question -- indicates that the provisions must be read as in your second suggested reading. The platting requirement under the subsection is not triggered unless there is a division of the tract -- be it for a subdivision, an addition, or suburban or building lots -- and the division also involves the laying out of "streets, alleys, squares, parks, or other parts" as described in the statute.

Attorney General Opinion JM-781 (1987) implicitly supports this reading of section 232.001(a). That opinion addressed whether certain divisions of tracts were subject to the platting requirement under the provisions in question prior to their codification as section 232.001(a).[1] No distinctions were made in the questions presented or in the responses as to whether the divisions in question were to lay out subdivisions, additions, or building or suburban lots. The opinion addressed whether the absence of any dedication of parts of the division for public use relieved the owner who divided the tract of the platting requirement and concluded that the absence of dedication for public use, standing alone, did not settle the issue.

The statute refers to land "intended for public use," not to land "dedicated to public use." Additionally, [it refers] to land "intended for public use, [for] the use of purchasers or owners."

[1] The opinion addressed inter alia the provisions of article 6702-1, section 2.401, V.T.C.S. These provisions were codified in 1987 as section 232.001. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 1, at 1003.

Clearly implicit in this discussion, we think, is that the platting requirement is not triggered unless the division of the tract -- be it for a subdivision, addition, or suburban or building lots -- also involves the laying out of

streets, alleys, squares, parks, or other parts of the tract intended to be dedicated to public use or for the use of purchasers or owners of lots fronting on or adjacent to the streets, alleys, squares, parks, or other parts . . . .

Local Gov't Code § 232.001(a).

You also express concern about the "legal definitions" of the terms "subdivision," "suburban lots," and "building lots" as used in section 232.001(a). For example, you ask: "how small may a rural tract be without becoming a 'suburban lot,' which requires platting if roads or streets are involved[?]"

We do note that courts have defined "subdivision," as used in similar provisions, very broadly. See City of Lucas v. North Tex. Mun. Water Dist., 724 S.W.2d 811, 823 (Tex. App. - Dallas 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (term "subdivision" as used in former article 970a, section 4, V.T.C.S., "may be simply a division of a tract of land into smaller parts"); City of Weslaco v. Carpenter, 694 S.W.2d 601, 603 (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (term as used in former article 970a, section 4, V.T.C.S., "may refer simply to the act of partition itself"); see also Attorney General Opinion JM-781 (1987).[2]

[2] As codified, the language of section 232.001(a) now reads "intended to be dedicated to public use," rather than "intended for public use" as did the predecessor provisions of article 6702-1, section 2.401. This slight variation in the language in the codified version from that addressed in the opinion does not, we think, make the discussion in Attorney General Opinion JM-781 of article 6702-1, section 2.401, less apposite to our analysis here of section 232.001(a). See Local Gov't Code § 1.001 (no substantive change intended).

We do not think it necessary to address here whether the term as used in the language "subdivision of the tract, including an addition" in section 232.001(a) might mean more specifically a "planned development." Whether given divisions constitute "subdivisions," or "additions," or the laying out of "suburban" or "building" lots would probably involve questions of fact such that the issue would have to be approached on a case-by-case basis.

SUMMARY

Under Local Government Code section 232.001(a) a division of a tract of land outside the limits of a municipality into two or more parts -- whether the division be to lay out a subdivision, addition, or suburban or building lots -- is subject to the platting requirements of the subsection only if the division is also to lay out streets, alleys, squares, parks, or other parts of the tract intended to be dedicated to public use or for the use of purchasers or owners of lots fronting on or adjacent thereto, as provided in the subsection.

Very truly yours,

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas

MARY KELLER
First Assistant Attorney General

LOU MCCREARY
Executive Assistant Attorney General

JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY
Special Assistant Attorney General

RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee

Prepared by William Walker
Assistant Attorney General