Fannie Mae and "Multiple Parcels"

[Carnivore]

The FAQs I have found to be solid advice as to how to understand practical application of important matters.

Could not agree with you more. What goes hand in hand with FAQ in many instances are AO's which have been very helpful to me and I am sure many other appraisers over the years.

 

[J Grant]

So far nobody has produced a FAQ relating to this specific problem. The FAQ referenced is about combining 2 lots into one larger lot, which is not the same thing. An FAQ keeps being bought up, but the FAQt addresses a different appraisal problem.

Can anyone produce and paste here an FAQ that actually addresses this specifically, appraising an improvement conveyed with a continuous excess lot for one price, the two remain contiguous after the sale?

 

[Lee Lansford]

So far nobody has produced a FAQ relating to this specific problem. The FAQ referenced is about combining 2 lots into one larger lot, which is not the same thing. An FAQ keeps being bought up, but the FAQt addresses a different appraisal problem.

Can anyone produce and paste here an FAQ that actually addresses this specifically, appraising an improvement conveyed with a continuous excess lot for one price, the two remain contiguous after the sale?

Life is too short to continue on this road with you. No, you don't want to "combine" the lots, you just want to assign one 'value' to the two where such (when the value opined to is MV) is not appropriate.

 

[J Grant]

I asked specifically for the FAQ which addresses this specific problem, (it does not exist) and thus nobody can provide it.

No, you don't want to "combine" the lots, you just want to assign one 'value' to the two where such (when the value opined to is MV) is not appropriate.

Other than your declaring it is not appropriate", where is actual source support for your edict? USPAP does not prohibit one market value opinion for two properties conveyed together, and several respected appraisers here have said it can be done.

 

[Lee Lansford]

I asked specifically for the FAQ which addresses this specific problem, (it does not exist) and thus nobody can provide it.

No, you don't want to "combine" the lots, you just want to assign one 'value' to the two where such (when the value opined to is MV) is not appropriate.

Other than your declaring it is not appropriate", where is actual source support for your edict? USPAP does not prohibit one market value opinion for two properties conveyed together, and several respected appraisers here have said it can be done.

Wow.

Simply wow.

 

[J Grant]

Wow.

Simply wow.

Once again, your post has no content whatsoever to back up your position. You just make personal comments such as this, or allude to not being appropriate or proper practice.

You have yet to produce the USPAP edict that prohibits an appraiser providing a single MV opinion of 2 properties sold together ( because it does not exist.)

 

[Carnivore]

here is what FHA Says: https://sandiegopurchaseloans.com/two-continuous-parcels/

How the FHA Approaches This Issue
To start, we need to understand the FHA’s definition and treatment of “excess and surplus land.” According to the FHA, “excess land” is simply land that is not needed for the existing improvement project. It does not serve or support the improvements in any way. The best use of the excess land may not be the same as the best use of the improved parcel, and excess land can be sold separately. “Surplus land” is defined slightly differently. Surplus land is land that is not currently needed to support the existing changes but cannot be separated from the property and sold off to a buyer. It does not have a best use that is independent from the rest of the land, and may or may not contribute to the overall value of the improved parcel.

The FHA will also require specific analysis and reporting. The appraiser must include the “highest and best use” in the report, which will be used to support the appraiser’s conclusion that excess land exists. The appraiser must also include surplus land in the valuation. If the appraised area contains multiple legally-conforming platted lots that are under one legal description and ownership, then the second vacant lot could be divided and sold or developed as a separate parcel, assuming the division will not result in a break from zoning regulations for the second vacant lot. The value of the second lot will be excluded from the final value brought by the appraisal. The appraiser will also need to provide a value for the hypothetical principle site and improvements.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

It appears that FHA is making this a little easier for the Appraiser.

 

[J Grant]

here is what FHA Says: https://sandiegopurchaseloans.com/two-continuous-parcels/

How the FHA Approaches This Issue
To start, we need to understand the FHA’s definition and treatment of “excess and surplus land.” According to the FHA, “excess land” is simply land that is not needed for the existing improvement project. It does not serve or support the improvements in any way. The best use of the excess land may not be the same as the best use of the improved parcel, and excess land can be sold separately. “Surplus land” is defined slightly differently. Surplus land is land that is not currently needed to support the existing changes but cannot be separated from the property and sold off to a buyer. It does not have a best use that is independent from the rest of the land, and may or may not contribute to the overall value of the improved parcel.

The FHA will also require specific analysis and reporting. The appraiser must include the “highest and best use” in the report, which will be used to support the appraiser’s conclusion that excess land exists. The appraiser must also include surplus land in the valuation. If the appraised area contains multiple legally-conforming platted lots that are under one legal description and ownership, then the second vacant lot could be divided and sold or developed as a separate parcel, assuming the division will not result in a break from zoning regulations for the second vacant lot. The value of the second lot will be excluded from the final value brought by the appraisal. The appraiser will also need to provide a value for the hypothetical principle site and improvements.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

It appears that FHA is making this a little easier for the Appraiser.

So ? That is specific to FHA , and FHA it is not fannie- the topic is discussing how fannie suggests it be handled. FHA does not want the excess land included in the value, fannie allows it to be included.

 

[Andrei Fin]

If the appraised area contains multiple legally-conforming platted lots that are under one legal description and ownership, then the second vacant lot could be divided and sold or developed as a separate parcel, assuming the division will not result in a break from zoning regulations for the second vacant lot. The value of the second lot will be excluded from the final value brought by the appraisal.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
.

This either means that our "subject property" is not the same as with Fannie... or that a HC should be made to give no value to an amenity that has some value (depending on your data of course, but it's not often that land has no value)

 

[Lee Lansford]

So ? That is specific to FHA , and FHA it is not fannie- the topic is discussing how fannie suggests it be handled. FHA does not want the excess land included in the value, fannie allows it to be included.

Again...wow.