• Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online  community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.

Functional Or External Obsolescence?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The thing about external obsolescence is that it also impacts land value, although, as land does not depreciate in the context of the term's use in the cost approach, it's value declines in response to those external forces. In the case of the property referenced in the first post, land values in its neighborhood, which is immediately outside a major city's CBD, are skyrocketing in response to changes in highest and best use. Are forces external to the property at play which are positively affecting land values in the area? Yes. However, those external forces are not the cause of the decline in the existing building's value. The building no longer represent's anything slightly resembling the perfect improvement for the site. The building has become an under-improvement which is deficient in design compared to the perfect improvement and a most probable purchaser would raze the existing structure to redevelop with a more intensive use. Thus, although the building is less than 10-years old and has been well maintained, it does not contribute to overall value and has a remaining economic life of zero. This, to me, is undeniably related to functional obsolescence.

But, there are different ways to solve a problem and I wanted to get other opinions.

Thanks to those who responded.
 
Oh, I know it is functional. I do a lot of reviews these days and someone else asserted it was external. I was trying to see if there was a school of thought in that regard.
Yes, there is, and I mentioned Betts & Ely, authors of "Basic Real Estate Appraisal" which I believe was the California appraiser textbook before FIRREA. The ARE (12th ed.) does conclude that age, itself, which represents a change in the use of a building as modernization occurs, is functional in nature. But that, again, involves the design of the building.
External obsolescence may involve the building only, the land only, or it may involve the whole property (from TARE, pg. 412, 12th ed) and as Betts & Ely explained, "Generally, economic obsolescence is caused by some event that has occurred in the neighborhood since the property was built." and go on to say, "Deciding whether to classify a particular loss in building value as functional or external obsolescence is sometimes difficult. ... buildings once considered adequate may no longer measure up... Since the cause of such obsolescence is clearly related to external factors (change in market demand) one might argue that the loss in value should be labeled economic obsolescence. However, the usual practice is to categorize it as functional obsolescence, just as if the defect had been present since the time of construction."...

Simple enough but let me give you an example why I would consider external obsolescence in some cases. A 3,500 SF home of high quality is highly sought property in my region, basically on a larger lot, and basically would need to be close to the I-49 (formerly I-540) corridor that stretches from the Missouri state line south through Bentonville, Rogers, Springdale, and Fayetteville. There are a lot of such homes within 10 miles of these towns. There is no functional obsolescence. A couple years ago I appraised an estate and warned the trustee that the property would suffer in the marketplace because it is about 30 miles from the interstate and thus outside the normal area such executive homes exist. Local farmers do no build such homes. So it was sold with 40 acres for about $475,000 after being on the market for a year, and we knew that the dwelling cost over $900,000 when new, about 6 years earlier. There is no flaw in the design or layout. It is simply a French Chateau that is out of the market area for French Chateau. We have a number of similar such homes in that school district, but they simply are not on the market often as they are custom built for people who have a lot of money. The pool of buyers for such rural located executive mansions is very small. Yes, you could call it "over-built" and a super-adequacy but it isn't over-built nor super-adequate in the right market. So in my opinion, it is the location that is the issue. 20 miles further east and this puppy would have sold for $200,000 more plus.

Again, I find no defect in the design, loss of utility, or any change in the utility due to construction techniques and styles that are now out of date. And similar property regional would sell higher, and demand for land and dwellings are high locally, but just not that kind of dwelling. It is, in my opinion, suffering from a locational external obsolescence. But clearly one can make a case that it is "functional" in nature...which hopefully does not lead us to conclude everything outside physical deterioration is functional. In the case of an older commercial building that is out dated, yes, it is best called functional obsolescence. But when a dwelling is not impacted by same, but simply at the high or low end of the market spectrum that it "lives" in, then perhaps external is the best descriptor. Personally, I doubt it matters much except we need to address that loss in value. SAL_FRONT (Medium).JPG
 
I believe that's called an over improvement!
 
Only because of its location. So why would it not be classifiable as locational obsolescence and locational obsolescence is generally considered to be external. Nothing in the house itself is any "over-improvement", and there are any number of such homes 30 miles east in the I-49 corridor and 20 miles west on Grand Lake o' the Cherokees.

Again, going by what the textbook says, one can be like the fly on the mirror who said, "That's one way to look at it."
 
Last edited:
The improvements do not represent the perfect improvements for the property. That is related to functional design, not external forces.
 
It's an over improvement for that location (at least according to your post--would fly in another location). If I build the Taj Mahal in a rough urban neighborhood, it's the same issue. The problem is what is "on" the site. That said I can see the possibility for labeling it external but I'm sticking with functional.
 
In Ken's example, it seems to be a pretty clear cut case of functional. But in weak markets, separating functional obsolescence from economic obsolescence can be a challenge in practice, when there is often both. There is a lack of buyers due not only to what is on the site (to steal Pete's phrase) but because of the market in general. Take that improvement off of the site, and there are still a scarce number of buyers. Obviously, that is reflected in the exposure time and the lower land value, but in the obsolescence to the improvements, I often see the two as not being exclusive.

Edit-there is a lot that is challenging about doing an appraisal in a weak market with no buyers, so perhaps saying that separating the two is challenging in this type of market is not really saying anything.
 
Last edited:
In Ken's example, it seems to be a pretty clear cut case of functional. But in weak markets, separating functional obsolescence from economic obsolescence can be a challenge in practice, when there is often both. There is a lack of buyers due not only to what is on the site (to steal Pete's phrase) but because of the market in general. Take that improvement off of the site, and there are still a scarce number of buyers. Obviously, that is reflected in the exposure time and the lower land value, but in the obsolescence to the improvements, I often see the two as not being exclusive.

Edit-there is a lot that is challenging about doing an appraisal in a weak market with no buyers, so perhaps saying that separating the two is challenging in this type of market is not really saying anything.
Agreed
 
The improvements do not represent the perfect improvements for the property. That is related to functional design, not external forces.
It's an over improvement for that location

Yes, but "over-improved" isn't always given as part of the definition of functional obsolescence. Personally, I prefer to limit functional obsolescence to the dwelling itself. "...an impairment of desirability and usefulness caused by new inventions, changes in design, improved processes for production, ...." That would be my preference. Now if it was an obvious over-improvement of the dwelling - this one being about 10 miles from the one above - I'd have to consider both the garish improvements and style (castle?) as well as the fact it's outside its normal market (externality).
CASTLEPIX1.JPG KNIGHT (Medium).JPG
 
External obsolescence.

Although the building improvements have relatively little physical depreciation, they no longer contribute to overall value.

Let's say the existing good (or average) quality improvement is an office building worth $400,000. An office building throws off a land residual (whether rented-out or owner-occupied). This is capitalized at, say, $100,000, a nifty 25% land allocation ratio. But the hood is gentrifying quickly. The land is $300,000 for a H&BU of multi-family mid-rise. The land is valued at its H&BU in the cost approach. The external obsolescence hitting the land is $200,000. (Others might allocate the external between the land and building, and that'd be fine but not my approach). This economic force is coming from the market outside of the property and has nothing to do with the functionality of the improvement. The office use could continue for many years or decades at this rate, and this is quite common. Though it is not the ideal improvement for the site, a cost approach would still use an office RCN minus physical to derive the value of the building. It wouldn't make sense to cost out some hypothetical multi-family improvement and then squish it into value of the office building -- though I have tried as much for kicks.

Different land value scenario: Say the land value as multi-family H&BU is $500,000. Then it is a land appraisal at the H&BU. Minus demo, so the As Is value might be $450,000. The external obs would be allocated between the land and the building. In all practically, I've argued in some past posts that the status quo would likely continue -- in the real world a developer isn't going to scrape something good and productive just because a proposed H&BU is $1 or higher (or in this case 12% higher than As Is). There are too many risks and market fluctuations. But once it definitely makes sense, the improvement is gone and the use flips.

Glancing at TARE, 13th (p. 435), types of functional obs include:
  • Curable deficiency requiring an addition
  • Curable deficiency requiring substitution or modernization
  • Curable super-adequacy
  • Incurable deficiency "missing a building component or design feature ... e.g. low ceilings" that is not econ. feasible to correct.
  • Incurable super-adequacy
None of these relate to the four market forces (social, economic, govt, environmental) affecting H&BU, but the functional obs rather deals with problems inherent with the use of the an improvement and how the market compensates or punishes the improvement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Find a Real Estate Appraiser - Enter Zip Code

Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at
AppraiserSites.com
Back
Top