Can my Arizona county make me pay for a full land survey before it will approve splitting my parcel into smaller lots?

Plain-English summary

When you split a parcel into five or fewer lots in Arizona, at least one of which is ten acres or less, A.R.S. § 11-831 controls how the county reviews your application. The statute lists four things the applicant must show. The third item, § 11-831(B)(3), requires the applicant to provide "a statement from a licensed surveyor or engineer, or other evidence acceptable to the county, stating whether each lot, parcel or fractional interest has physical access that is traversable by a two-wheel drive passenger motor vehicle." Some counties read the "or other evidence acceptable to the county" clause as giving them authority to demand a full land survey on top of (or instead of) the licensed-surveyor statement.

The AG concluded that reading is wrong. The statute uses "or," not "and." That means the licensed-surveyor statement is one path; "other evidence acceptable to the county" is an alternative path. A county can accept other documentation in place of the licensed-surveyor statement if the applicant offers it. The county cannot reject the surveyor statement and then require a full land survey instead. If the applicant provides what § 11-831(B)(3) lists, and meets the other three requirements in subsection (B), "the county may not deny approval."

What this means for you

If you are a landowner trying to split your parcel

Bring the four things § 11-831(B) asks for: a showing that each lot meets the applicable county zoning, a preliminary title report (or comparable document) showing legal access, a licensed surveyor's or engineer's statement about physical access traversable by a passenger vehicle, and the necessary utility easements. If the county responds by demanding a full land survey, the AG opinion gives you a direct citation. The opinion concludes the county cannot make a survey a condition of approval if you've provided the surveyor statement and met the other three prongs.

If you are a county zoning or planning official

Before requiring a survey beyond what § 11-831(B)(3) describes, look at this opinion. The AG's read is that requiring a survey on top of the surveyor statement exceeds your statutory authority. You can still ask for, and accept, "other evidence acceptable to the county" as an alternative when the applicant prefers, but you cannot use that phrase to add requirements.

If you are a county attorney or planning director

The opinion is squarely interpretive, it parses "or" versus "and" and concludes the disjunctive controls. Counties that have ordinances or unwritten practices requiring a full land survey for every § 11-831 application should review them against this opinion. The opinion notes that the legislature "did not grant boards of supervisors the authority to require certain documents, like a land survey, instead of accepting a statement from a licensed surveyor or engineer." Local ordinances that purport to add survey requirements are vulnerable to challenge.

If you are a real estate or land-use attorney advising a client through a § 11-831 split

This opinion is your tool when a county adds requirements not in the statute. It also flags the alternative pathways under (C): conditional approval (no permits issue until subsection B is fully met) and variance authority. Those tools belong to the board of supervisors, not to staff demanding a survey.

Common questions

Why does it matter whether the legislature wrote "or" instead of "and"?

Because Arizona courts read "or" as disjunctive, meaning either of two alternatives works, and "and" as conjunctive, meaning both items together. State v. Pinto and de la Cruz set out that rule. The AG applied it: with "or," the legislature gave applicants the choice of providing a licensed-surveyor statement or other evidence the county finds acceptable. The county doesn't get to insist on both.

What if the licensed-surveyor statement seems incomplete?

The statute requires the statement to address whether each lot has physical access traversable by a two-wheel-drive passenger vehicle. If the surveyor or engineer doesn't address that question, the statement isn't satisfying § 11-831(B)(3). At that point the county can ask for a corrected statement or for "other evidence acceptable to the county," but the standard remains the same, physical access traversable by an ordinary car.

What can the county do if it has real concerns about the application?

Three things, none of which involve adding a survey requirement. First, if the application doesn't meet all four (B) requirements, the board can deny. Second, the board can grant conditional approval under (C), where no building or use permits issue until the (B) requirements are met. Third, the board can grant a variance from one or more of the (B) requirements under (C). Each of those exists in the statute.

Does this opinion apply to all land splits in Arizona?

It applies to splits within § 11-831's scope: county-staff review of a land division that creates five or fewer lots, where at least one lot is ten acres or smaller. Subdivisions of more than five lots are governed by separate subdivision-platting laws. Splits inside city limits are governed by city ordinances. The opinion is also limited to the question of survey requirements at the (B)(3) stage; counties have other lawful authority to address things like septic and water adequacy through other statutes.

Can a board still ask for a land survey if the applicant volunteers one?

Sure. The opinion says the county cannot require a survey when the applicant has supplied the surveyor statement. Nothing prevents an applicant from providing additional documentation if it serves their purpose, and nothing prevents the county from accepting it.

What if the county votes to send the (B)/(C) framework to the ballot under (A)?

Section 11-831(A) lets a board "submit a ballot question to the voters of the county to allow the voters to determine the application of subsections B and C to qualifying land divisions in that county." If the voters change the regime, the analysis would too. Until then, this opinion controls.

Background and statutory framework

A.R.S. § 11-831 is the 2010 statutory scheme for county review of small-scale land divisions, enacted by S.B. 1206. Subsection (A) gives boards of supervisors authority to "adopt ordinances and regulations pursuant to this section for staff review and approval of land divisions of five or fewer lots, parcels or fractional interests, any of which is ten acres or smaller in size." It also says clearly: "The county may not deny approval of any land division that meets the requirements of this section."

Subsection (B) lists four mandatory requirements:

1. Each lot meets minimum zoning requirements for the applicable zoning designation.
2. The applicant provides a preliminary title report or other acceptable document demonstrating legal access.
3. The applicant provides a statement from a licensed surveyor or engineer, or other evidence acceptable to the county, on whether each lot has physical access traversable by a two-wheel-drive passenger vehicle.
4. The applicant reserves the necessary utility easements.

Subsection (C) gives the board three alternatives if the application falls short: conditional approval (no permits until (B) is met, with a signed acknowledgment from the applicant), a variance from one or more (B) items, or denial. None of those involves adding a survey requirement.

The opinion's reasoning is methodical: "or" is disjunctive (State v. Pinto, 179 Ariz. at 595), "and" is conjunctive (Bither, 226 Ariz. at 200), and the legislature could have written "and" but wrote "or." That's the entire analysis. The AG declines to read the statute against the legislature's chosen word.

Citations

• A.R.S. § 11-831 (county review of land divisions; mandatory requirements; conditional approval and variance)
• A.R.S. § 11-831(B)(3) (licensed surveyor or engineer statement; "or other evidence acceptable to the county")
• A.R.S. § 11-831(C) (conditional approval; variance authority)
• State v. Pinto, 179 Ariz. 593, 595 (App. 1994) (interpreting "or" as disjunctive)
• Bither v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 226 Ariz. 198, 200 (App. 2010) ("and" as conjunctive)
• de la Cruz v. State, 192 Ariz. 122, 125 (App. 1998) (effect of "and")

Source

• Landing page: https://www.azag.gov/opinions/i22-006-r22-008
• Original PDF: https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/I22-006.pdf

Original opinion text

To:

Gail Griffin, Representative

Arizona House of Representatives

Question Presented

Under A.R.S. § 11-831 or any other law, may a county require/mandate a survey as part of a land division?

Summary Answer

No. Under A.R.S. § 11-831(B)(3), a county must approve an application for a land division if the applicant provides "a statement from a licensed surveyor or engineer . . . stating whether each lot, parcel or fractional interest has physical access that is traversable by a two-wheel drive passenger motor vehicle" and satisfies the other requirements in A.R.S. § 11-831(B). While A.R.S. § 11-831(B)(3) also allows a county to rely upon "other evidence acceptable to the county," including a land survey, to approve an application, the phrase "or other evidence acceptable to the county" does not allow the county to refuse to accept a statement from a licensed surveyor or engineer and to instead require a land survey.

Background

In 2010, the Arizona Legislature enacted a detailed statutory scheme regulating county approval of land divisions. See 2010 Ariz. Legis. Serv. Ch. 244 (S.B. 1206). The statute, codified at A.R.S. § 11-831, is entitled, "Review of land divisions; definitions." The statute begins by granting county boards of supervisors with authority to "adopt ordinances and regulations pursuant to this section for staff review and approval of land divisions of five or fewer lots, parcels or fractional interests, any of which is ten acres or smaller in size." A.R.S. § 11-831(A). The statute makes clear that "[t]he county may not deny approval of any land division that meets the requirements of this section." Id.

The statute gives boards of supervisors a number of options when addressing an application for a land division. If the board of supervisors determines that an application satisfies four criteria listed in the statute, then "[a]n application to split a parcel of land shall be approved." A.R.S. § 11-831(B). A board of supervisors can instead "submit a ballot question to the voters of the county to allow the voters to determine the application of subsections B and C to qualifying land divisions in that county." A.R.S. § 11-831(A). A board of supervisors must conditionally approve an application for a land division that does not fully comply with the four criteria in § 11-831(B) "if the applicant provides an acknowledgment that is signed by the applicant and that confirms that no building or use permit will be issued by the county until the lot, parcel or fractional interest has met the requirements of subsection B." A.R.S. § 11-831(C). A board of supervisors is also permitted to "grant a variance from one or more of the items listed in subsection B." A.R.S. § 11-831(C). Finally, a board of supervisors may deny an application if one or more requirements in subsection B are not met and the board does not grant conditional approval or a variance.

The four requirements in § 11-831(B), therefore, often play a determinative role in the approval of an application for land division. The four requirements in subsection B are as follows:

The lots, parcels or fractional interests each meet the minimum applicable county zoning requirements of the applicable zoning designation.

The applicant provides a standard preliminary title report or other acceptable document that demonstrates legal access to the lots, parcels or fractional interests.

The applicant provides a statement from a licensed surveyor or engineer, or other evidence acceptable to the county, stating whether each lot, parcel or fractional interest has physical access that is traversable by a two-wheel drive passenger motor vehicle.

The applicant reserves the necessary and appropriate utility easements to serve each lot, parcel or fractional interest created by the land division.

A.R.S. § 11-831(B)(1)–(4). The question presented in this Opinion—whether a land survey is required—turns on the meaning of § 11-831(B)(3). More specifically, the question presented turns on whether the phrase "or other evidence acceptable to the county" allows a county board of supervisors to require documents other than those listed in § 11-831(B)(3) when considering applications for land division.

Analysis

The Attorney General's Office concludes that the phrase "or other evidence acceptable to the county" does not allow a county board of supervisors to require documents in addition to those documents listed in A.R.S. § 11-831(B)(3). Rather, the phrase "or other evidence acceptable to the county" allows a board of supervisors to approve a land division application based on documents other than a statement from a licensed surveyor or engineer. The phrase does not allow a board of supervisors to reject an application that includes a statement from a licensed surveyor or engineer based on a board demand for additional documents, like a land survey.

This conclusion flows from the Legislature's use of the word "or" before the phrase "other evidence acceptable to the county," rather than the word "and." Courts "will usually interpret 'or' to mean what it says, and . . . will give it that meaning unless impossible or absurd consequences will result." State v. Pinto, 179 Ariz. 593, 595 (App. 1994). "The word 'or,' as it is often used, is '[a] disjunctive particle used to express an alternative or to give a choice of one among two or more things.'" Id. (quoting Rutledge v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 147 Ariz. 534, 556–57 (App. 1985)). Applying the ordinary meaning of the word "or" to A.R.S. § 11-831(B)(3), the Legislature provided that an applicant for land division must provide a statement from a licensed surveyor or engineer, but also gave boards of supervisors the choice of approving if an applicant provides other documents in lieu of such a statement. The Legislature did not grant boards of supervisors the authority to require certain documents—like a land survey—instead of accepting a statement from a licensed surveyor or engineer. Giving the word "or" in § 11-831(B)(3) its ordinary meaning does not create impossible or absurd consequences.

The conclusion would be different had the Legislature decided to use the word "and" before the phrase "other evidence acceptable to the county." "The word 'and' is a conjunction connecting words or phrases expressing the idea that the latter is to be added or taken along with the first." See Bither v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 226 Ariz. 198, 200 ¶10 (App. 2010) (quotation omitted); see also de la Cruz v. State, 192 Ariz. 122, 125 ¶11 (App. 1998) (conjunction "and" between two words in a statute "requires the interpretation of the two words in combination, defeating the . . . argument that they operate in the disjunctive"). Had the Legislature used the word "and" before the phrase "other evidence acceptable to the county," boards of supervisors could require that an applicant for land division provide certain documents, including a land survey, in addition to a statement from a licensed surveyor or engineer. Because, however, the Legislature used the word "or" instead of "and" before the phrase "other evidence acceptable to the county," if an applicant provides a county with a statement from a licensed surveyor or engineer that each lot, parcel or fractional interest has physical access that is traversable by a two-wheel drive passenger motor vehicle, and the applicant satisfies the other three requirements in § 11-831(B)(3), then the board of supervisors must approve the application, even if the applicant does not provide a land survey.

Conclusion

Under A.R.S. § 11-831(B)(3) a county must approve an application for a land division if the applicant provides "a statement from a licensed surveyor or engineer . . . stating whether each lot, parcel or fractional interest has physical access that is traversable by a two-wheel drive passenger motor vehicle," and the applicant satisfies the other requirements in § 11-831(B), even where the applicant does not provide a land survey.

Mark Brnovich

Attorney General