Is it living space?

[J Grant]

Upon exam of your particular situation, I would count the one area with the a/c in the gross living area while the area without the a/c would be treated differently.
THAT is what I would do too! great minds think alike.

 

[Rick Neighbors]

common for the market

As they are common for your area, you are in luck. Did they upgrade the A/c to compensate for the additional "living area"? You have to make the call, because you are there and have seen the comps. But, like some, I would probably call the air conditioned room living area, and the other a sunroom......and disclose what you found.

We have a lot of enclosed patios, garages, porches in this area also. Folks are just trying to get more living area without having the extra expense of adding on or selling and moving.

Rick

 

[Zero]

I use ANSI because it is something to fall back on. ANSI requires the finish of an addition to be equal to the finish of the original part of the house.

.

I think ANSI says finish is to be similar (which I read as comparable), not equal (which I read identical).

 

[Mztk1]

I think ANSI says finish is to be similar (which I read as comparable), not equal (which I read identical).

Is the rest of the house "similar" to a semi-finished porch?

Judging from the picture of the rear porch, I'd have to guess that not only is it different in having concrete interior walls, but it is likely different in being such a large space that is not partitioned. It is just one long rail car of a room.

I personally feel telling whether the finish is similar or not is easy. If I walk into a room and say "This looks like it was, or may still be, a porch", then the finish is not similar unless the whole house looks like it was once a porch.

 

[J Grant]

re the finish being similar, yes, because the exterior construction on converted porch is CBS block, and the rest of the house is CBS block. the fact that the interior is not finished nicley (not painted dryall over the block or stucco finish) is cosmetic and can be cheaply fixed, the exteior main construcion is comparable to rest of house. You can't judge just by interior finish alone. For example, if the construction of the converted porch was cheap wood frame, it would not be similar to the rest of the house, even if the interior had been drywalled or nicely painted. One has to differentiate about easily cured cosmetic interior finishes, and costly functional exterior construction.

 

[Nevermind 3]

I am surprised that very few people are even considering the "legally permissible" issue. I thought that was taught in Appraisal 101, or maybe I am not remembering my original training too well, from it being a long time ago.

I am not saying that it has no value or you can't give it value but, IMO, you need to address the permit/legal issue in any case. Just because it is common for an area to have illegal additions and/or conversons, etc., doesn't make them all legal. If your subject happens to be the lucky one where code inforcement decides finds an illegal conversion, etc., that may lead to additional costs, to either get it permitted or destruct portions that are unpermitted, thereby, reducing it's value in the market. And that may not have anything to do with the quality of construction.

I have seen beautiful additions and conversions of very high quality, which were unpermitted, which had to have been converted back to original use, or actually torn apart or down, since they did not conform to code standards. And these additions and conversions were in areas where they were common. Even if you are a few inches off a boundary setback, you may be required to tear up an improvement to rectify the situation. I am not a code enforcement expert and would not want to be put up to those standards, so I would disclose, disclose, disclose, or in appraisalspeak, explain, explain, explain.

The market does not care if it was legally done, the tax assessor happily ignores legality in favor of revenue, and the local building authorities never even blink.

Typically, very few of us verify permits and most of us assume the main living area is legally permitted, if our actual measured square footage is reasonably close to the Assessors'. But, if this is square footage NOT reflected in public records, you should explain why you decided to count it as living area,etc.

And per your Assessor comment, you are right. I was an Appraiser at the County Assessor's office and we would just measure any new square footage we saw when we were physically at a property. We were not affiliated wth the building dept and typically did not check permits, unless it was brand new improvement, from ground up and we needed to see the "final" and "C of O" on it, but we still may not've remeasured the changes or additions they did prior to completion. In other words,the public records square footage does not necessarily reflect legal, permitted squrae footage. I had one house in high end neighborhood, that was on record as being a 1,200sf house, but was added onto by the contractor/owner, and was over 4,000sf when I measured it. That didn't change the fact it was illegally added onto, although, we did change the assessor sf to reflect what I measured. Those are 2 separate issues, that many appraisers blur into 1 (i.e. legal sf vs Assessor's sf, same with use codes-by the way, just because it is used as a duplex on public record, doesn't mean it is legally zoned for it-at least in my county).

Once again, IMO, just because that type of improvement may be common in the market, that is no excuse for not addressing the legal/permit issue.

We, as fee appraisers, & in particular as either willing or unwilling fannie form slaves, seem to be the only ones with a different opinion about this type of space. I find that interesting as we are supposed to measure and report market acceptance/reaction and the market says no issue.

(this of course excludes the really badly done stuff)

The maket also doesn't care about USPAP or appraisal theory, etc., but we still need to incorporate them within our work. It is only the FNMA form slaves, as you call them, that may not address these issues properly, since they are not addressed in the form.

We are not supposed to measure and report maket reaction in a vacuum. The market doesn't dictate HOW we do our work. Just because he market values something that goes against our training, doesn't mean we don't address that fact.

 

[Richard Carlsen]

I am surprised that very few people are even considering the "legally permissible" issue.

Legally permissible is applied for H&BU. We are appraising to utility as defined by the market. If the market sees it as having value of GLA and is not specifically forbidden ( below grade finish as a prime example) there is no prohibition to including it in the GLA.

Remember that we are not the compliance police.

 

[Mike Boyd]

Drywall is an expense. Curtains are personal property. The fact is the concrete block walls make the finish inferior. If there is no reaction that is okay, give the finished room the same SF adjustment as you would regular living area, but I do believe there is a difference and you just stated you believe so too, calling it semi-finished. It should be looked at different in the grid, IMO.

QUOTE]

I owned a house years ago that had a fireplace in the center of one wall. I guess, as a decorator touch, that entire wall from floor to ceiling, was covered with adobe style concrete blocks, the same material that faced the fireplace. Using YOUR reasoning, Jim, THAT room would not be living area.

I think another factor that has not been mentioned is the exterior. I presume it is also on a slab, but how about the exterior siding and the roof? If they are the same as the main structure, I would include it. If not, it would be questionable.

 

[Gary Schinagel]

I'm doing a home where a former porch was turned into living space. Typically both the tax appraiser and the market accept these areas as living space if they are connected to the main living area, ducted and fully finished. Similar comps are plentiful.

The home I'm doing is the lower end of the market and "fully finished" becomes a bit of a subjective term.

This house has two rooms that were created from the old porch. They are on level with the original slab and share the same floor finish as the rest of the home- terrazzo. They are both separated from the main living area by sliders. Both have a combination of pained concrete block and paneling on the walls.

The one on the left is ducted and is used as a tv room. The one on the right is not and is used as a catch all room. Leaving the sliders open does allow the AC to cool the room on the right.

Would you count either one as main living area?

ps - ignore the focus issues. My camera is annoying.

No I would not the only way they could be counted FULLY is if they are heated AND conforming to get full value. Mechanical sytem extensions and or supplements alone will not make this area conforming to the original structure. So even if they do heat it (which is hypothetical) I would pull comps bracketed WITHOUT INCLUDING IT and give it contributory value on a line item part of the grid. Its not a poor addition it just does not qualify for full GLA period.

 

[doug clarke]

If it smells like an enclosed patio, it is a patio. If you are compelled to call it living area, you have functional obsolescence due to the decreased flow of the floor plan.