Real Estate Appraisal Forum

appraisersforum.com logo
The Premiere Online Community for Real Estate Appraisers!
 Fastest Way to Find a Real Estate Appraiser Enter Zip Code:
 
 
Go Back   Appraisers Forum > Real Estate Appraisal Forums > General Appraisal Discussion
Register Help Our Rules Calendar Archives Mark Forums Read


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 06-28-2011, 01:51 PM
apprzr951 apprzr951 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
State: California
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 41
Default 1004 or 1025 - wrong zoning in county GIS system.

I appraised a property a couple of weeks ago consisting of main house (2400 sf 4 bedroom 2.5 baths and a detached guest house 1500 sf 3 bedroom 2 bathrooms) situated on 4+ acres. This was a nightmare of a report as finding a comp with a similar detached guest house was impossible. I located a detached casita comp and another comp with an attached guest house 800 +/- sf. All of this was discussed in the report, parameters were expanded, etc.

The owner gets a copy of the report and goes thru the roof with the value (of course), also wanted to know why I did not appraise it as a multi family (I appraised it as a SFR with an accessory unit). Multifamily properties are rare for this area and extremely atypical given the lot size. The lot size is a little large but not atypical as there are homes in the area that support equestrian facilities for example. Researching the subjects zoning (Riverside County, California) A-1-1 (Light Agriculture) clearly stated the guest house or accessory dwellings (guest house) cannot be rented or held out for lease. I explained in my first rebuttal to appraise it as anything other than a single family with an accessory unit would be an unpermitted use.

The owner then contacts the County and is advised that the zoning is not A-1-1 despite what the County GIS reports, it is actually R2 (I have yet to confirm this.) Now the owner is back on “this needs to be appraised as a multi family” not an SFR with a detached guest house. The client is requesting the followingPlease confirm this information and make any necessary modifications to the report or provide detailed commentary related to any contrary information your are provided through your conversation with xxxxx at the Planning Department.”

I am assuming that based upon a conversation with the Planning Department the client is going to request for me to change this monstrosity to a Multi Family 1025 report which will make no since at all. The lot size will not be bracketed, nor will the unit mix of each of these units.

How would you handle this? Even if the zoning in the GIS is incorrect, how do you approach not appraising it as a Multi Family. I feel I did my due diligence in researching this property. I went back into the GIS system this morning to double check (maybe I was wrong) the zoning says A-1-1. What further bothers me was that this was ordered as a SFR 1004 in the first place. Any feedback would be appreciated.
Sponsored Links

  #2  
Old 06-28-2011, 02:08 PM
coolhandluke's Avatar
coolhandluke coolhandluke is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
State: New Jersey
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 596
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by apprzr951 View Post
I appraised a property a couple of weeks ago consisting of main house (2400 sf 4 bedroom 2.5 baths and a detached guest house 1500 sf 3 bedroom 2 bathrooms) situated on 4+ acres. This was a nightmare of a report as finding a comp with a similar detached guest house was impossible. I located a detached casita comp and another comp with an attached guest house 800 +/- sf. All of this was discussed in the report, parameters were expanded, etc.

The owner gets a copy of the report and goes thru the roof with the value (of course), also wanted to know why I did not appraise it as a multi family (I appraised it as a SFR with an accessory unit). Multifamily properties are rare for this area and extremely atypical given the lot size. The lot size is a little large but not atypical as there are homes in the area that support equestrian facilities for example. Researching the subjects zoning (Riverside County, California) A-1-1 (Light Agriculture) clearly stated the guest house or accessory dwellings (guest house) cannot be rented or held out for lease. I explained in my first rebuttal to appraise it as anything other than a single family with an accessory unit would be an unpermitted use.

The owner then contacts the County and is advised that the zoning is not A-1-1 despite what the County GIS reports, it is actually R2 (I have yet to confirm this.) Now the owner is back on “this needs to be appraised as a multi family” not an SFR with a detached guest house. The client is requesting the followingPlease confirm this information and make any necessary modifications to the report or provide detailed commentary related to any contrary information your are provided through your conversation with xxxxx at the Planning Department.”

I am assuming that based upon a conversation with the Planning Department the client is going to request for me to change this monstrosity to a Multi Family 1025 report which will make no since at all. The lot size will not be bracketed, nor will the unit mix of each of these units.

How would you handle this? Even if the zoning in the GIS is incorrect, how do you approach not appraising it as a Multi Family. I feel I did my due diligence in researching this property. I went back into the GIS system this morning to double check (maybe I was wrong) the zoning says A-1-1. What further bothers me was that this was ordered as a SFR 1004 in the first place. Any feedback would be appreciated.

Appzr-Could it be that even though the zoning for subject would allow multi family dwellings which are atypical in subjects' market, that the SFR with accessory unit comps you initially found would still be the best comps available? or Wouldn't it be less feasible to use less similar comps (smaller lots, inferior utility and or appeal etc but Multi fam) than the ones you have used already, despite the change of form from 1004 to 1025?
?

Last edited by coolhandluke : 06-28-2011 at 02:09 PM. Reason: grammar
  #3  
Old 06-28-2011, 02:30 PM
CANative's Avatar
CANative CANative is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ukiah, CA
State: California
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 46,961
Default

For gawd's sake. No one is going to buy that much house on that much land just to collect rental income. Just say that.

You need to get a good confirmation on the zoning before doing anything else. If it is R2 you might need to re-assess HBU due to the larger parcel size. If it's A1 then you might have a problem with legal use unless the structures pre-date current zoning.

A1
http://www.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us/p...l#article_xiii

R2
http://www.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us/p...ml#article_vii

I'll bet you a nickle it's Ag zoned.
__________________
You have been removed from this discussion.
  #4  
Old 06-28-2011, 02:35 PM
Mountain Man Mountain Man is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: GA
State: Georgia
Professional Status: Certified General Appraiser
Posts: 15,424
Default

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest_and_best_use

Quote:
Financial feasibility
The highest and best use of a property must be financially feasible. This means that the proposed use of a property must generate adequate revenue to justify the costs of construction plus a profit for the developer. In the case of an improved property, with obvious remaining economic life, the question of financial feasibility is somewhat irrelevant. In the case of an improved property with limited remaining economic life, the question of financial feasibility becomes a question of the maximally productive use of the site. If the value of the land As Vacant exceeds the value of the property As Improved less reversion/demolition costs, then redevelopment of the site becomes the maximally productive use of the property and continued use of the existing improvements that do not represent the highest net value of the site is considered to be financially unfeasible.
  #5  
Old 06-28-2011, 03:22 PM
zdfenton's Avatar
zdfenton zdfenton is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
State: Wisconsin
Professional Status: Certified General Appraiser
Posts: 373
Default

I think you're looking at this too narrowly

Legally permissible (zoning) is not the only test of highest and best use, there is also physically possible, financially feasible, and maximally productive

Assuming they're right and the zoning allows renting, just because it's legally permissable doesn't mean it's financially feasible and maximally productive
  #6  
Old 06-28-2011, 04:02 PM
MKBURNETT MKBURNETT is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Oceanside, CA
State: California
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 358
Default

Here in SD Cry multi gets less value. So he apparently has it rented and needs income to get the loan or he needs it appraised lower. Either way is not your problem. Just ask owner for you to do any intense research with zoning if he got a variance to have a rental and inform owner that this will notify the powers that be of his rental property and this could cause him fines if it is not legal.
  #7  
Old 06-28-2011, 04:25 PM
apprzr951 apprzr951 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
State: California
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 41
Default Thanks

"For gawd's sake. No one is going to buy that much house on that much land just to collect rental income. Just say that."

That's is pretty much what I am thinking, just trying to put it in terms that the client would understand.

Thanks for all of the feedback....

I did not mention that the second smaller unit is currently occupied by either the father or brother of the borrower who resides in the main house.

Again, thank you for all of the responses.
  #8  
Old 06-28-2011, 08:18 PM
Mike Kennedy's Avatar
Mike Kennedy Mike Kennedy is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southern Hudson Valley
State: New York
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 28,116
Default

"Permits issued after July 1997 are available on our web site. Permits issued before July 1997 are archived records and can be obtained only through a request for records. Our oldest records date back to approximately 1963."
http://www.rctlma.org/building/content/bs_records.aspx
__________________
Kill the Contract Review Bull$eye - Now.
  #9  
Old 06-29-2011, 12:43 PM
CANative's Avatar
CANative CANative is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ukiah, CA
State: California
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 46,961
Default

Quote:
4080 Lemon Street, 2nd Floor
P.O. Box 1629
Riverside, CA 92502-1629
I was just there a couple of weeks ago arguing a 311 acre subdivision assessment before the assessment appeals board. I got there early so I had this huge breakfast at a little diner a couple of blocks away.
__________________
You have been removed from this discussion.
Sponsored Links

Closed Thread


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump




Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
     Terms of Use  Privacy Policy
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at AppraiserSites.com

Fastest Way to Find a Real Estate Appraiser Enter Zip Code:
Partner Sites:
AppraiserUSA.com - National Appraiser Directory AllDomainsUSA.com - Domain Name Registration
DeadbeatListings.com - Deadbeat ListingsAppraiserSites.com - Web Hosting for the Professional Real Estate Appraiser
Find FHA Appraisers - FHA Appraiser Search Commercial Appraisers - Commercial Appraiser Search
Relocation Appraisal - Find Relocation Appraisers Domain Reseller - Business Opportunity
Home Security Buzz - Home Security Info Radon Testing - Radon Gas Info
My Medicare Forum - Medicare Info Stop Smoking Help - Help Quitting Smoking
CordlessPhoneStore.com - Great Cordless Phones AndroidTabletCity.com - Android Tablet Computers

Follow AppraisersForum.com:          Find us on Facebook            Follow us on Twitter


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:37 AM.

SiteMap: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93