How Will ANSI Measurement Standard Going to Improve Appraisal Accuracy?

[jay trotta]

So the Question is; How many of you check the building Dept records for the build out ?? Archt. plans & changes ??

 

[TruJa]

So the Question is; How many of you check the building Dept records for the build out ?? Archt. plans & changes ??

For the comps? And pay $35 plus staff time for a public records search? No thanks. If they post online for free then OK, otherwise no.

 

[Peter LeQuire]

Valuation issue aside, living area is one attribute for which there is/are standard(s), and one about which an appraiser can be factually wrong. Being wrong is not a good thing.

 

[Tim Hicks (Texas)]

Having drafted architect's plans in a previous life, I can say that they do not measure the same way as ANSI- and even the AMS standard which differs from ANSI. But I've yet to see an assessor claim to measure by either AMS or ANSI. Architects measure by the stud walls sometimes, but by the sheathing at others. And the worst type of measure is by the center of the wall which, of course, is a hopeless form of measurement be you an appraiser or a builder. And depending upon the trusses, etc. They may have the sheathing flush with the foundation, especially when bricking.

Anyone trying to measure any of that within 0.1' is fooling only themselves.

I have been in this business for 30 years and every blueprint I have ever seen has dimensions to the nearest inch or less (I will see 11 ft 6 1/2 in or 6 1/4). Sometimes they will have different measurements for exterior masonry or without (they will show you 4 1/2 or 5 1/2 inches for masonry). I have seen 1,000's of blueprints and never seen one rounded to the foot or half foot. I have seen several with no dimensions whatsoever, and I requested copies with exterior dimensions and have always got them.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

every blueprint I have ever seen has dimensions to the nearest inch

Yes, all house drawings were in feet and inches, not tenths. Even surveying, it was usually tenths except for construction work. And, of course, in survey work, you often ran across rods and chains. And on one federal job they had to have metric - go figure, what a mess. They had both English and metric because nary a construction guy had a clue. Typical government jobs. SNAFU.

 

[TC]

Actually, it puts all appraisers on the same page. Builder plans and architects use the same level of accuracy. The only people who will whine about it is old appraisers who don't like change and use weak arguments to support no change. The assessors can be hundreds of feet off ANSI or no ANSI. There is nothing we can do about that. However, by having our reports be more accurate with regard to GLA it only improves the appraiser's accuracy and opinion of value. We cannot control the inaccuracy of the data, but we can control our inaccuracy. None of you measure your comparable sales to make sure the GLA is correct unless you appraised the comparable sale yourself whatever method you use. So, your own argument defeats the way you do it now. Besides, if we only adjust based on +/-100 sf difference in GLA it will only matter when the assessor data is already way off anyway. What a bunch of whine bags! All I see is crying based on resistance to change or inability to see the improvement of your own product. Agents don't measure houses, they use assessor data. Assessor data is notoriously flawed far too often from lot size to GLA (in my market area it is). I have three counties where you can't depend on assessor lot size and they all have GLA issues on many properties.

Hey, Duckie Boy, how do you really feel?

Having worked on two county reassessments and as a hearing officer for one county, I can attest to the fact that county measurements can be inaccurate. A few of the counties I work in are spot on. I always download the county sketch to check against mine, just to be safe. And NEVER trust an agent's data, that goes without saying to all you whine bags!

 

[Non Sequitur]

What's everyone complaining about? We didn't even try to set standards for something that's appraisal 101, so here it comes handed down from up high. Not the first time a standard or process has been force fed to us, and it will not be the last.

 

[Elliott]

Has anyone ever talked to a framer or builder when he's laying out a foundations?

 

[sputnam]

Adopting the ANSI standard will make the appraiser's description of the subject more accurate. Unless and until all real estate agents and county assessors also implement the same measurement standard, it won't make the appraisal more accurate.

 

[Elliott]

So, ANSI says,

"Ceiling Height Requirements
To be included in finished square footage calculations, finished areas must have a ceiling height of at least 7 feet (2.13 meters) except under beams, ducts, and other obstructions where the height may be 6 feet 4 inches (1.93 meters); under stairs where there is no specified height requirement; or where the ceiling is sloped. If a room’s ceiling is sloped, at least one-half of the finished square footage in that room must have a vertical ceiling height of at least 7 feet (2.13 meters); no portion of the finished area that has a height of less than 5 feet (1.52 meters) may be included in finished square footage."

To the best of my recollection, my FHA supervisor said to measure to a 4' wall height. If the ANSI standard is used it would disadvantage 'attic GLA' reducing their square footage. I wonder if it could become a valid objection for a ROV?

Measuring to the outside wall surface would on a 24 x 40 = 960 sf house (foundation) increase it to 24.2 x 40.2 = 973 sf, or 1.4%. If comparables are based typically on NC type rules, then the subject properties would be effectively 'inflated' 1.4%, even when the subject and comparables were the very same sized homes.