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 12-02-2003, 01:46 PM
Pat Butler Pat Butler is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
State: Illinois
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 3,993
Default

I did an appraisal for 1/2 of an attached duplex. It's zoned in such a way that each half can be sold separately.

I did not develop the cost approach because it is non sensible to consider building 1/2 of the whole building when that does not represent what was actually built. The builder has the economy of scale when building the whole building- the builder doesn't build "1/2" of building separately and place it on the market. These two units share a common wall. Who pays for the common wall if you are only looking at building only 1/2 of the building? Also, that common wall is supported on each side by intersecting walls that further support the common wall. If you were to look at building 1/2 of the building then that common wall would probably need to be reinforced above and beyond its current specs. Also, they share a roof with a ridgeline in the center. If you were to only build 1/2 of a building then the ridgeline would have to be moved to the center of the one unit. Obviously, lots of problems...

Even if I were to calculate the cost of the entire building (2 units) I would be missing important data from the other attached unit because I obviously didn't inspect it.

The client is insisting on me developing the cost approach. What do you think?
Sponsored Links

  #2  
Old 12-02-2003, 01:57 PM
Pine Tree's Avatar
Pine Tree Pine Tree is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern Maine
State: Maine
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 318
Default

I agree with you.

This reminds me of Condexes (duplex, condominiums.. only two units in the association) in my market.. We don't do cost approach for those.. And the reasoning is generally as you stated it. A credible value indicator is nearly impossible to develop..

Hope that helps
Wendy
  #3  
Old 12-02-2003, 02:05 PM
Austin Austin is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Blairs, Virginia
State: Virginia
Professional Status: Certified General Appraiser
Posts: 5,020
Default

I don't see this any differently than doing the cost approach on the FNMA form. Just fake it like everybody else does. Estimate the cost, make the effective age and total economic life match so that the result is the same value as the income or sales approach and be done with it. If the client questions you, just insists that is the way everybody does it.
  #4  
Old 12-02-2003, 02:25 PM
Chris Colston's Avatar
Chris Colston Chris Colston is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: East Central Florida, Space Coast
State: Florida
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 5,442
Default

What would they do if the subject half had a fire that totaled that half? Would they not rebuild it and just leave the other half standing? The lot has value, did you give it any land value? If you really were to think about it you can develop a Cost Approach for half. There would certainly be a cost to rebuild if it burned down.
__________________
Chris
  #5  
Old 12-02-2003, 02:28 PM
Tim Hicks (Texas)'s Avatar
Tim Hicks (Texas) Tim Hicks (Texas) is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Crowley
State: Texas
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 11,907
Default

Just remember the Marshall & Swift has a separate section for multi-families.
__________________
Please don't log on here and ask for our blessings unless you are prepared to accept the truth.
  #6  
Old 12-02-2003, 02:37 PM
Pat Butler Pat Butler is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
State: Illinois
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 3,993
Default

Chris-- I agree that there would be some sort of replacement cost to replace the 1/2 unit if it burned down. BUT, that cost would not be the same as what the builder incurred when he built the ENTIRE building. His costs per unit would likely be lower due to the economy of scale. It's a matter of developing a replacement cost that represents the market, and I don't think there is a reliable way to do that unless you duplicate what the market does- namely, build two units together than sell them off separately.
  #7  
Old 12-02-2003, 02:43 PM
Tawfik Ahdab's Avatar
Tawfik Ahdab Tawfik Ahdab is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Central Oregon Coast
State: Oregon
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 1,816
Default

Right, Tim. However, are there land sales allowing tandem homes (that's what we call them here)? If not, then the cost approach does not apply. There is no departure if the approach is neither necessary nor applicable.

If there are no land sales, the appraisal would still be a complete appraisal despite the omission of the cost approach, for the very good reasons Pat stated.
  #8  
Old 12-02-2003, 03:02 PM
Richard Carlsen's Avatar
Richard Carlsen Richard Carlsen is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Tip of the Mitt: Northern Michigan
State: Michigan
Professional Status: Licensed Appraiser
Posts: 8,372
Default

Zero-lot line houses. We marketed some of those in the Kalamazoo market in the early 80's. Wood foundations. Drove the appraisers crazy. Almost all of them financed FHA.

On the cost approach, figure what percentage the common wall is and reduce the cost of the wall by that 1/2 that amount. Simple. Bet the Cost Approach is close if you use the proper approach.
__________________
Now it's time to go fishing and ride the bike........
  #9  
Old 12-02-2003, 03:07 PM
Tim Hicks (Texas)'s Avatar
Tim Hicks (Texas) Tim Hicks (Texas) is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Crowley
State: Texas
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 11,907
Default

You can do a cost approach to please the lender, just explain in your comments that the cost is to rebuild that side since that is the only feasible cost approach. However, it would seem that the income approach and sales comparison would be the best approaches to value. I would bet there is a high amount of rental properties in a duplex neighborhood.
__________________
Please don't log on here and ask for our blessings unless you are prepared to accept the truth.
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 02:42 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