N.M. Stat. » Chapter 47 — Property Law
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 47-6-1 (2026)

Short title

✓ laws through the 2025 session (retrieved May 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Chapter 47, Article 6 NMSA 1978 may be cited as the "New Mexico Subdivision Act".

History: 1953 Comp., § 70-5-1, enacted by Laws 1973, ch. 348, § 1; 1995, ch. 212, § 1. ANNOTATIONS

Cross references. — For Land Subdivision Act, see 47-5-1 to 47-5-8 NMSA 1978.

The 1995 amendment, effective July 1, 1996, substituted "Chapter 47, Article 6, NMSA 1978" for "Sections 1 through 30 and Sections 37 and 42 of this act".

Strict construction. — The subdivision statute is an enactment in derogation of the common law constituting restrictions upon the free use of property and must be strictly construed against the state in its attempt to enforce the statute. State v. Heck, 1991- NMCA-076, 112 N.M. 513, 817 P.2d 247.

Article was not designed to protect landowners owning land adjoining land being subdivided. Gabaldon v. Sanchez, 1978-NMCA-103, 92 N.M. 224, 585 P.2d 1105.

Plat approval a ministerial act under prior law. — Before the passage of the New Mexico Subdivision Act, the board of county commissioners had nothing to do but the ministerial act of endorsing its approval on plats which complied with all statutory requirements for rural subdivisions, and mandamus was a proper remedy when it refused to do so. El Dorado at Santa Fe, Inc. v. Board of Cnty. Comm'rs, 1976-NMSC- 029, 89 N.M. 313, 551 P.2d 1360.

Tracts forming part of the same land area. — Tracts need not be contiguous to form part of the same area of land for purposes of the New Mexico Subdivision Act. Physical distances, common streets and utilities, and historical unity are considerations that might be evaluated in an appropriate case. State v. Heck, 1991-NMCA-076, 112 N.M. 513, 817 P.2d 247.

Effect of city's summary approval of subdivision plans. — Summary approval of subdivision plans by the city of Las Cruces did not obviate the need for compliance with the New Mexico Subdivision Act and approval by the Dona Ana County board of commissioners. State v. Heck, 1991-NMCA-076, 112 N.M. 513, 817 P.2d 247.

Purchasers defaulting on agreements. — The fact that certain purchasers defaulted on their agreements did not change the fact that the act of subdividing land for the purpose of sale triggered the New Mexico Subdivision Act. State v. Heck, 1991-NMCA- 076, 112 N.M. 513, 817 P.2d 247.

Sufficient evidence to support finding of violation. State ex rel. Stratton v. Alto Land & Cattle Co., 1991-NMCA-146, 113 N.M. 276, 824 P.2d 1078.

Law reviews. — For note, "State Securities Law: A Valuable Tool for Regulating Investment Land Sales," see 7 N.M.L. Rev. 265 (1977).

For note, "Gabaldon v. Sanchez: New Developments in the Law of Nuisance, Negligence and Trespass," see 9 N.M.L. Rev. 367 (1979). For annual survey of New Mexico law relating to property, see 12 N.M.L. Rev. 459 (1982).

For note, "Definitional Loopholes Limit New Mexico Counties' Authority to Regulate Subdivisions," see 24 Nat. Res. J. 1083 (1984).

For article, "Memories and Miracles Housing the Rural Poor along the United States- Mexico Border: A Comparative Discussion of Colonia Formation and Remediation in El Paso County, Texas, and Dona Ana County, New Mexico," see 27 N.M.L. Rev. 33 (1997).

For article, "Rural Development Considerations for Growth Management," see 43 Nat. Res. J. 781 (2003).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1980–2019 · leading case: C.F.T. Dev., LLC v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 32 P.3d 784 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
C.F.T. Dev., LLC v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 32 P.3d 784 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “See NMSA 1978, §§ 47-6-1 to -29 (1973, as amended through 1999).”
Kaywal, Inc. v. Avangrid Renewables, Inc., 495 P.3d 550 (N.M. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “Our Supreme Court’s subsequent holding that formal county acceptance is required before a county’s maintenance obligations are implicated was in part grounded in the Subdivision Act (NMSA 1978, §§ 47-6-1 to -29 (2005)), but the Court separately reasoned that “even setting aside…”
McGarry v. Scott, 2003-NMSC-016, 72 P.3d 608. · cites it 2× “This Court granted certiorari to determine whether the New Mexico Subdivision Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 47-6-1 to -29 (1973, as amended through 1999) (Subdivision Act), and this Court’s opinion in State ex rel.”
Zuni Indian Tribe v. McKinley Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 2013-NMCA-041, 3 N.M. 606. · cites it 2× “{1} The New Mexico Subdivision Act (the Act), NMSA 1978, §§ 47-6-1 to -29 (1973, as amended through 2009), governs the subdivision review and approval process by counties.”
Sandoval Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners v. Ruiz, 893 P.2d 482 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “See NMSA 1978, §§ 47-6-1 to -29 (Repl.Pamp.1982).”
Brazos Land, Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 848 P.2d 1095 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “The Board, in considering subdivision applications, is governed by the New Mexico Subdivision Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 47-6-1 to -29 (Repl.Pamp.1982) (the Act).”
Lorentzen v. Smith, 5 P.3d 1082 (N.M. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “{1} This appeal affords us another opportunity to address the New Mexico Subdivision Act (the Subdivision Act), NMSA 1978, §§ 47-6-1 through -29 (1973, as amended through 1995), in light of our recent opinion in State ex rel.”
State ex rel. Udall v. Cresswell, 1998-NMCA-072, 960 P.2d 818. · cites it 2× “See NMSA 1978, §§ 47-6-1 to -29 (1973, as amended through 1995).”
State v. Heck, 817 P.2d 247 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “The state appeals from a final judgment denying its request for injunctive relief for alleged violations of the New Mexico Subdivision Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 47-6-1 to -29 (Repl.Pamp.1982) (the Act).”
State ex rel. Anaya v. Select W. Lands, Inc., 613 P.2d 425 (N.M. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “(§§ 47-6-1, et seq., N.M.S.A. 1978). The trial court, sitting without a jury, imposed the maximum fine of $1,000 on each of the eighteen counts.”
Valdez v. Vigil, 2007-NMCA-031, 154 P.3d 691. · cites it 2× “” {12} We also must consider the New Mexico Subdivision Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 47-6-1 to -29 (1973, as amended through 2005) (the NMSDA), which is referred to in both Subsections 61-23-28.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.