How to determine if property is a condo

[Couch Potato]

A twin home in Sun City is definitely not a condo. I am assuming you are in the older Sun City and not one of the newer sections? Since I left Phoenix in 1995 I am not familiar with the new areas that have been developed since then. Good idea to get the CC&Rs directly from the title company. I had an advantage for one year, TRW bought a title company and they shared office space with the appraisal office. So each order in Sun City I could go next door, get a copy of the CC&Rs and added that to my folder of Sun City floor plans. My folder (which I had to leave behind and I am sure no longer exists) had all the floor plans, CC&RS, etc that existed in Sun City from the 1950s to 1995. The Sun City MLS use to refer people to me for info on Sun City because I had so much data and info about it. My first chief appraiser had been accumlating it for years before 1986 and then I kept adding to it. Every time I went to the sales office, I went picked up more floor plans and data. And by the way, Del Webb never set up any "site condos" in Sun City or Youngtown. He had some very knowledgable attorney's when he started his grand design

I will gladly defer to Jo Ann as an expert on Sun City in Arizona.

 

[David M Johnson]

Jo Ann has clearly a lot of experience and knowledge in this area and should be considered the expert. Not sure how you folks handle it locally, but I know I'm always asked to prove my research if it differs from what the lender shows. Rarely now will the lender provide me with anything useful. The last time I got into a drawn out discussion was for the quad style properties, and the specific wording in the CC&R's made the lender consider the property a condominium form of ownership even though it was clearly not one on the legal description. The assessor even makes things easy by deviating from a 4 zero suffix in the parcel number for condo properties. Several days of proving I was right with plat maps, legal descriptions, etc to several people at the lender, and they still maintained it needed to be on a condo form. I finally had someone explain it in a way that made sense to me, at least at that time, and I did put it into a condo form with disclaimers everywhere I could fit in. I have come to the conclusion that very little is clearly black and white and most is just different shades of gray.

 

[jmarch305]

Renee, you can go to the assessors site and pull up the parcel, then click on the MCR #. it will bring up the recorders office docs for that MCR. if its a condo it will usually say on the first page somewhere there is an HPR. if it is no a condo it will likely say something like townhouse or PUD/PAD. Thats what i usually do hasn't failed me yet.

 

[jmarch305]

Renee, I actually just went to the recorders site clicked on recorders information then in the first paragraph plat maps is highlighted click there and view the 3 pages of plat. no HPR mentioned anywhere and it says subdivision a couple of times. its not a condo in my book unless someone has supporting information that says HPR. if they sware its a condo ask them for a copy of the title report and ask them to highlight where it says HPR.

 

[nhansen]

I have a question that is similar to the beginning question on the post. I have read the comments and seek some insight on this scenario: Resort Town in the Idaho Mountains working on a FHA Refi for a supposed Condo unit. The legal reads: Timberlost IV Unit 49 Block 2. It is detached and the owner owns the land under the dwelling. There are a few different phases and some are termed condos and others are not.
In earlier discussion with other appraisers in the area this was discovered from a title company: “Timberlost I thru V are Timberlost Condominiums per the CCR’s and legal descriptions they are described as units (even though they are lots and single family homes are on them,… However the phase that the lots we are working with are in Timberlost VI Estates and the CCR’s refer to them as both lots and condo unit. Having read the CCR’s it appears the intent for Phase VI is to be lots and maybe units but does not state which ones were to be which. So in this case we should be using the legal description for the lots not the units like the prior Timberlost phases.”

The county recognizes it and is taxing it as a non-condo detached SFR. Haven't heard back from the P&Z dept to get their insight.

The lender is adamant that this is on the 1073 form. They reference the HUD 703 suffix: Project approval is no longer required for site condos. Site condos will now utilize the 703 suffix; appraisals will be completed on the 1073 form. A condominium rider is still required.

Thanks in advance for the brutality and insight.:new_2gunsfiring_v1:

 

[jmarch305]

Jo Ann has clearly a lot of experience and knowledge in this area and should be considered the expert. Not sure how you folks handle it locally, but I know I'm always asked to prove my research if it differs from what the lender shows. Rarely now will the lender provide me with anything useful. The last time I got into a drawn out discussion was for the quad style properties, and the specific wording in the CC&R's made the lender consider the property a condominium form of ownership even though it was clearly not one on the legal description. The assessor even makes things easy by deviating from a 4 zero suffix in the parcel number for condo properties. Several days of proving I was right with plat maps, legal descriptions, etc to several people at the lender, and they still maintained it needed to be on a condo form. I finally had someone explain it in a way that made sense to me, at least at that time, and I did put it into a condo form with disclaimers everywhere I could fit in. I have come to the conclusion that very little is clearly black and white and most is just different shades of gray.

Does it really matter what they consider? its the legality of the subject. a title company or assessor or recorders office should be able to give the final word. if a lender wont provide with the data they say indicates a condo, are they hiding something? makes me suspicious.

 

[Jo Ann Meyer Stratton]

Do not depend on the assessors records to determine if it is a condo or not. They use the property usage codes of 07___ rather recklessly at times and do not assign that usage code based on recorded documents but what some clerks bright idea is. The recorded CC&Rs for the subdivision is the only location for the correct information. I am sure they are available on the recorder's website, although since the Sun City phases were set up in the 1960s and 1970s they might not be readily available. If you can't find the CC&Rs on the recorder's website you will need to go directly to a title company and get a copy from them.

The definitions for condo ownership varies from state to state depending on the laws of each state. Include a copy of the CC&Rs in your appraisal report if necessary to explain to an out of state lender or underwriter or AMC cleark why the report is on a 1004 instead of the condo form.

 

[reneeaz]

You do not understand condo ownership and maybe a CE course will help. An undivided 1/16 interest in the legal is one hell of a clue.

I understand condo ownership. If you think just because it says 1/16 interest in the legal, it is you that needs to go back to school.

 

[Mark K]

Does anyone know what exactly I should ask the title company for to prove to me and my mom the homeowner's don't own the land under their house and its a condo.

Every title company I've dealt with has an attorney either on staff or retainer. Have the title company's attorney make the call.

From what I read of the description, it sounds like a non-condo PUD with each lot owner having a 1/16th interest in the common area. These are typical in this area and most everyone, including the owners, believe that they live in a condo when in fact they are detached SFR with maintenance agreements.

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

For those who don't know (like me):

Horizontal Property Regime
Creation of a Condominium Project in which co-owners own free interests in units together with fractional interests in general common elements as provided for in Arizona Revised Statutes Section 33.552, which determines the use to be made of the improved land whether or not such improvement is composed of one or more separate buildings of one or more floors or stories.

[Ten years ago, before the 'net, I would still be lacing my boots en route to the library 10 miles away. Life is wonderful today for those with inquiring minds . . . and perhaps the end of America as it has been recognized for the past 5 decades was an inevitable shake-out in the growth of an international economy.]