Abbreviated version - What is up with the wide gap between compensation and typical expectations for determining site value (improved or not) when completed as a stand alone assignment vs. when included as part of the URAR (cost approach or not)? Potential exposure to liability and complaint repercussions exist for both, arguably on the same level. After Fannie dumped the requirement for the CA and opinion of site value why has there not been resistance to the constant demand for this figure without proper consideration given to the added responsibility and exposure to claims and sanction? Not interested - Click out now Interested - Please read on Although the offer has been present on a few occasions I've never accepted an assignment that was dedicated solely to the development of an opinion of value for a site - vacant or otherwise. One can read some of the threads on assignments of this type and it becomes apparent that the considerations involved with these can be fairly complex, even when one is not dealing with raw undeveloped land but with vacant land classified as "sites" ready for development. It seemed to be generally implied that the fees involved would be at least equal to and will often surpass what is considered to be customary in the geographic area for an appraisal suited for development on the URAR. Not to advocate that a form is necessary for a land appraisal but the forms that are in place include a sales grid for comparables. While it can be argued that such a form can be completed using "dumps" or teardowns, the optimal situation not open to arbitrary dismissal would be the use of similar vacant sites - something that would certainly add to the difficulty in areas where vacant land sales are non-existent or rare. With the above as background has anyone else given thought to the expectations involved from all parties with regard to an assignment of the type noted above and compared them to the expectations involved with regard to typical scope of work, payment, and liability when an opinion of site value is included on the URAR? Is not that opinion of site value an appraisal itself incorporated into the report of the appraisal of the real property as a whole? We've had all level of discussions on the cost approach regarding its usefulness, applicability, and even discussed the suitability of the methodology itself involved with this approach. No sense in going over that again or ever expecting everyone to agree on these items. But can we agree that whether one is forced to provide a specific opinion of the site value via mandatory inclusion of the cost approach or if one includes it voluntarily, that suddenly there is a fairly large responsibility that has been assumed? Whether or not one actually ever gets called to the carpet for that figure is irrelevant. One complaint or state board investigation regarding ANY aspect of the report opens up the entire report to scrutiny. As to the dichotomy of perceived expectations, open up a couple of threads discussing vacant land appraisal. Suddenly, for example, we have certified appraisers becoming quite concerned about providing an opinion of the value for land zoned commercial, even if located in a primarily residential area. Yet there is little evidence for concern when the certified appraiser completes an assignment of a residence zoned commercial and provides an opinion of the site value within that report. And of course there is the common comment invoking competency with regard to completing a land appraisal thrown at some of the OP's of these threads while it is a certainty that they have filled in the "opinion of site value" field on the URAR on a large bulk of their assignment history. There is obviously a wide range of scope being applied to this portion of the URAR ranging from detailed analysis of vacant land sale data when available, precision cost studies and detailed depreciation analysis all the way down to the basic PFA. Without vacant land data could it be argued that both are vulnerable to the perils of selective enforcement in the event of a claim or complaint? Could it be argued that even with vacant land data, the opinion of the site value provided within a standard URAR - ie: the appraisal of the site - is extremely vulnerable to sanction or other repercussions without a scope of work and accompanying work file that could be expected by some interrogators to be in line with what would be standard fare if one were engaged to complete an appraisal of the site alone, say via one of the land forms? Would the typical cost approach disclaimer that we are all aware of be sufficient to ward off all concerns? Not that it would ever happen, but would there be a benefit to a widespread backlash against this almost ubiquitous demand for completion of the cost approach even when it is clearly not applicable or necessary for credible results? It seems that with some clients, even if they do not demand a cost approach, an opinion of the site value is still a requirement, just thrown in there with no consideration given to the fact that the proper derivation of this figure could be just as complicated, or more so, than the appraisal of the real property named on the assignment. Anyone else find this maddening or are my perceptions of the dichotomy I've attempted to describe misguided or a result of a basic misunderstanding on my part? If this perception is not exposed as misguided, the next time you complete a URAR with cost approach or have an assignment condition for inclusion of an opinion of the site value ask yourself if you would accept this as an assignment on its own and how much you would need to charge for it to account for the work involved under those conditions and the potential liabilities in the event of a claim or complaint.