Landsafe Condo GLA requirement?

[timd354]

I did not use the word "misread" in my post. That was purposeful on my part. The original post has sufficient ambiguity in its wording to cover both interpretations.

On the other hand, I don't think there is any ambiguity on the thoughts of whether it is normal practice for residential appraisers to measure a condo.Since Fannie guidelines cannot override USPAP, I don't see where just using a plat for the GLA would be an acceptable scope of work.

It is possible to appraise a property in compliance with USPAP without even visting the property that is the subject of the appraisal under an appropriate SOW, so it is just incorrect to say that not meausring a condo is a USPAP violation if the agreed upon SOW does not require the appraiser to measure the condo and the appraiser has a credible source of information regarding the size of the condo....I would think that providing a copy of the legal condo plat of the subject unit would be a credible source of the information, and it certainly meets the SOW for a typical Fannie Mae appraisal. Thus, not measuring a condominium unit in such a case is not a USPAP violation.

 

[Couch Potato]

It is circular though Couch. The expectations of the parties who are regular users of the 1073 would be that the report conforms to Fannie Guidelines, and my peers actions would be to write the report in conformance to the guidelines. You can't beg the question any better than that.

What Kevin says he does sounds acceptable to me if he is providing the measurements on the Apex sketch as shown on the plat. That is all one certifies to have done. My peers would do what they have certified, maybe more, but not less. I don't see how using the plat is in violation of USPAP.

No, it is quite clear most appraisers go over and above the minimum of Fannie guidelines and measure when appraising a condo and there are numerous other sources, besides Landsafe, where clients express a desire for appraisers to measure. Rarely do I have a client who's expectations don't go beyond Fannie Mae minimum guidelines. Your argument is severely flawed.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

SR3-1(C) The reviewer is not required to replicate the steps completed by the original appraiser. Those items in the work under review that the reviewer concludes are credible and in compliance with the applicable development Standard (STANDARD 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, or 9) can be extended to the reviewer’s value opinion development process on the basis of an extraordinary assumption by the reviewer.

Those items not deemed to be credible or in compliance must be replaced with information or analysis by the reviewer, developed in conformance with STANDARD 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, or 9, as applicable, to produce a credible value opinion.

The Review Appraiser is performing a Review of the report submitted "as-is". If the Reviewers' opinion is the GLA submitted sans physical measurement is deficient, that opinion should be stipulated in the Review and the SOW for the Review should be escalated to a Field Review including measurement by a LOCAL Field Review Appraiser.

 

[Peter LeQuire]

The Fannie Mae guide seems pretty clear, to me, "For a unit in a condominium or cooperative project, the sketch of the unit must indicate interior perimeter unit dimensions rather than exterior building dimensions."

It is circuitous to get from this that one doesn't need to measure the interior of a condominium for a loan intended for the secondary market.

 

[Mztk1]

No, it is quite clear most appraisers go over and above the minimum of Fannie guidelines and measure when appraising a condo and there are numerous other sources, besides Landsafe, where clients express a desire for appraisers to measure. Rarely do I have a client who's expectations don't go beyond Fannie Mae minimum guidelines. Your argument is severely flawed.

Not only do I know my argument is not flawed, it is obviously self-evident.

USPAP requires the appraiser to provide a credible opinion of value. There is no requirement within USPAP to measure the house or unit, if there was, an exterior drive-by would be by definition against USPAP. If my scope of work does not necessitate the measuring of the subject and I and my peers can provide a credible opinion of value without doing so, nothing necessitates me to do it.

A good example is the sketch. When I appraised in NJ all the appraisers up there included the interior walls every time. I started appraising in both NJ and FL and in FL none of the appraisers (at least in the Tampa area that I knew) included the interior walls. I wondered why and it was pointed out to me that there is no requirement in the guidelines to include the interior walls unless there is a functional inadequacy. So even though every NJ appraiser II knew included interior walls, I began omitting the interior walls in my NJ sketches. My clients in NJ may have expected interior walls but that was a secondary expectation. What they really expected for their file was an appraisal that conformed to Fannie guidelines. When I pointed out to the few who questioned it that the sketch is in accordance with the guidelines, the issue was dropped.

The expectations of my client when ordering a Fannie Mae compliant 1073 report without any additional scope of work added is to receive an appraisal that conforms to Fannie Mae guidelines. My peers would provide such a report. If they decide to go above and beyond, that is their choice, but they do not have to.

 

[Mztk1]

The Fannie Mae guide seems pretty clear, to me, "For a unit in a condominium or cooperative project, the sketch of the unit must indicate interior perimeter unit dimensions rather than exterior building dimensions."

It is circuitous to get from this that one doesn't need to measure the interior of a condominium for a loan intended for the secondary market.

Your "MUST" above is actually a "SHOULD" in the guidelines, which you can find on all regs. You can also find this in the Fannie Guidelines.

For units in condominium or cooperative projects, the
sketch of the unit must indicate interior perimeter unit dimensions
rather than exterior building dimensions. Generally, the appraiser
must also include calculations to show how he or she arrived at
the estimate for gross living area; however, for units in
condominium or cooperative projects, the appraiser may rely on
the dimensions and estimate for gross living area that are shown
on the plat. In such cases, the appraiser does not need to provide
a sketch of the unit as long as he or she includes a copy of the plat
with the appraisal report.

 

[Riick]

Does it really matter, Fannie's SOW or Landsafe requirements? The real question is what would your peers do?

From what I've gathered reading this thread and from my own 15 years experience in Florida.....measuring from paint to paint appears to be the accepted practice. Either that or providing the floor plan from the condo docs and using the square footage from the recorded docs. In most counties, in Florida, the condo docs are available, on line, through the county clerks office.

Anyway, Lee, in the normal everyday, what your peers do and how you would be evaluated should the issue ever come before the FREAB, would be to measure the unit.

BTW... Which ANSI standard for measurement are we talking about ??
"ANSI Square Footage Standard Now Available Following Industry Review and Update" LINK
And are you to measure up to the paint film, or to the INSIDE of the wallboard (depends on definitions in YOUR State and/or or condominium document), and what about the indentations for the floor-to-ceiling windows, oh, and what about the chases for the plumbing and HVAC - is this one owned by the individual, or the condominium?

Face it, some properties are not "regular" -which may or may NOT include the on the OP did- are virtually impossible to measure correctly.

As to USPAP, the key word/phrase is "PEERS", and I'll bet a large sum that the folks on this forum are NOT representative of the majority of appraisers in the USA - generally folks here are MUCH pickier.

 

[Reelestate]

SR3-1(C) The reviewer is not required to replicate the steps completed by the original appraiser. Those items in the work under review that the reviewer concludes are credible and in compliance with the applicable development Standard (STANDARD 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, or 9) can be extended to the reviewer’s value opinion development process on the basis of an extraordinary assumption by the reviewer.

Those items not deemed to be credible or in compliance must be replaced with information or analysis by the reviewer, developed in conformance with STANDARD 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, or 9, as applicable, to produce a credible value opinion.

The Review Appraiser is performing a Review of the report submitted "as-is". If the Reviewers' opinion is the GLA submitted sans physical measurement is deficient, that opinion should be stipulated in the Review and the SOW for the Review should be escalated to a Field Review including measurement by a LOCAL Field Review Appraiser.

My point exactly. He is reviewing my report as-is under its SOW. If the reviewer wants it measureed, then he needs to complete a Field Review and go measure himself. And for what's it worth, most of my "Peers" do not measure in this area. Most of the condos have been built in the last 10 years and we learned a long time ago that 90% of the condo docs are dead on accurate, and the other 10% are close enough.

 

[CANative]

Three cheers for Mike Kennedy. He's the only one who got it.

It's not the reviewer's job to tell the original appraiser what to do.

 

[Reelestate]

Three cheers for Mike Kennedy. He's the only one who got it.

It's not the reviewer's job to tell the original appraiser what to do.

AMEN, Brother