In reviewing eminent domain appraisals, I find it common that land value is nearly always valued as if vacant and ready for development under it's current zoning. What ever happened to the theory of valuation of land in the cost approach based upon it's contributory value. Now I took all of the Appraisal Institute courses back in the '80s when it was the AIREA. I remember specifically when taking the report writing course, the example we were given that essentially tested this theory. We were to develop a cost approach of an apartment complex with underlying land zoned for development of 30 units per acre (recently rezoned). The units, which were only 5 years old, were built to a density of 20 units per acre which was the maximum density at the time of construction. The question to the class was - which set of land comparables to use in the cost approach, comps zoned for the 20 upa density or zoned for 30 upa density? The answer given by the instructor, was the 20 upa sales. Because we were to value the contributory value of the land, not necessarily the land value as if vacant and ready for development to it's higher allowable density. This problem is common with homesites where the underlying land has been rezoned for commercial use, although there is no demand for this commercial use and the existing improvements represent the highest and best use as improved. Thoughts?