Acella: non coincident parcel address problem

This page is to describe and discuss the non coincident parcel address problem. 

Definition

Some addresses contain spatially non-coincident parcels.
A picture is worth a thousand words.

This is the parcel footprint of "1011 Silliman St" which includes parcels 5935-027 and 5935-028.
Parcel  5935-028 is not spatially coincident with the address point (in green).
You can see this for yourself in EAS.
Acella does not support this sort of address.
In Acella, parcels for an address must be spatially coincident with the address point.

Variation

There is quite a bit of variation to these data.

This one has 3 contiguous parcels.

This one is complicated and involves retired parcels.

 
This one is non-contiguious and seems likely to be an error of some sort. 

Universe

Here is a spreadsheet that contains all of these addresses.
You can see these in detail in EAS.
There are 3253 unretired parcel level addresses currently being used at DBI. 
This is out of some 300,000 plus addresses. 

Query

We can find these easily with a query like this.

SELECT
	ab.base_address_num,
	ab.base_address_suffix,
	a.unit_num,
	sn.base_street_name,
	sn.street_type,
	p.blk_lot
FROM address_base ab
inner join addresses a on (ab.address_base_id = a.address_base_id)
inner join streetnames sn on (ab.street_segment_id = sn.street_segment_id)
inner join street_segments ss on (ab.street_segment_id = ss.street_segment_id)
left outer join address_x_parcels axp on (axp.address_id = a.address_id)
left outer join parcels p on (axp.parcel_id = p.parcel_id)
WHERE 1 = 1
and sn.category = 'MAP'
and ab.retire_tms is null
and a.retire_tms is null
and axp.retire_tms is null
and not st_intersects(ab.geometry, p.geometry)
order by
	ss.st_name,
	ss.st_type,
	ab.base_address_num,
	ab.base_address_suffix,
	a.unit_num;

Questions

Does DBI have to support this kind of address?

Can we live with the Acella constraint of allowing only parcels to be part of an address if the parcel is spatially coincident?