In Hill v. City of Manhattan Beach (1971) 6 Cal.3d 279, an owner purported to divide a parcel into two parcels and sold them to separate parties. One party built a house on one parcel, and later acquired the other. When the house was built, both parcels were of a "minimum lot size" but subsequently that size was increased by city ordinance so that the second parcel, which was unimproved, did not meet the minimum. After the increase, the city enacted an ordinance prohibiting division and sale of a lot without approval by the city. A city ordinance defined a "lot" as a parcel plotted or mapped as such or of the minimum lot size. The owners sought approval and, when it was denied, declaratory relief. The Supreme Court held that "There is nothing in the nature of the acquisition of the two parcels . . . or other circumstances which renders the property two separate and distinct 'lots' within general definitions of that term. . . . Under the controlling definition in the instant case only the entire property qualifies as a 'lot' for development purposes and . . . neither of the two parcels, considered separately, does." ( Id. , at p. 283.)