ANSI Measurements

[Andee]

How many of you are find that ANSI is not the predominant measuring source with your governing entities that are supposed to be the knowledgeable sources for square footage? I was at a house the other day and because of the new ANSI measurement standards that we must follow, the house was 140ish sf larger because it has 2 stairwells that descend with nothing above them. One of my comps happened to be a model match for the subject but because the way the county tax assessor is reporting it, it was basically considered a smaller property. I don't adjust for anything smaller than 100 sf, so should I be adjusting for the 140ish sf difference because now I have to add in staircases or just state that I adjusted for everything else that was over 100 sf but this one because it's a model match and the new ANSI standards are screwing everything up?

So how far off are we going to be with all of our comps now that every single time you have a 2+ story dwelling with an open staircase that was never considered by the taxing entity? I just ran across it again for a new construction townhome, and you know they only have like 4 whole plans for the subdivision, so it's easy to tell which plan it is when your looking at it. You know the governing bodies will not change the way they are doing things, so why did Fannie think it was a good idea to do this knowing that we use these sources for information? I know that the tax entity is not always right but lately on the more recent and new construction homes, they have been very very close to what I would measure on the old standards. Also, if they did decide to start using ANSI, how many homeowners would be screwed with higher taxes because all of a sudden they found 140+ sf that they can start making money off of?

 

[sputnam]

1- The dwelling has not changed. The manner of measurement has. The market value is whatever it is no matter what method you use to measure and calculate the living area.

2- I don't know how it is in Texas. Here, appraisers don't assume that the SF listed in MLS or in Public Records is always perfectly accurate. People, the market, don't buy houses that way. They don't visit houses and then think...'I'm going to buy that one because it's 100 square feet bigger'. They buy based on how well the property fits their needs, lifestyle, tastes. On how well they like the neighborhood. On a lot of reasons. Small differences in SF, like 100-200 square feet, are almost always irrelevant to the value of the property.

 

[jay trotta]

1- The dwelling has not changed. The manner of measurement has. The market value is whatever it is no matter what method you use to measure and calculate the living area.

2- I don't know how it is in Texas. Here, appraisers don't assume that the SF listed in MLS or in Public Records is always perfectly accurate. People, the market, don't buy houses that way. They don't visit houses and then think...'I'm going to buy that one because it's 100 square feet bigger'. They buy based on how well the property fits their needs, lifestyle, tastes. On how well they like the neighborhood. On a lot of reasons. Small differences in SF, like 100-200 square feet, are almost always irrelevant to the value of the property.

Agreed, (highlighted)
that said has everyone not wondered over the years Why there may be a difference? (Assessor-MLS data) and made an attempt to verify those differences?
ANSI is one way of measurement that has been adopted by FNMA - IMO not much different from what has been used over the years for me, that said, there is still no way to verify comps., as we cannot physically measure those and that has not changed.

 

[Ariba]

Alsie35 has the answer measure to the nearest 1/16" and you are ANSI compliant.

How about this for an example? (Its probably one of the top 3 most complicated measurements I've done in 20 years. Just did it a month ago). Its actually not as simple as it looks - seriously - the homeowner gave me 2 prior appraisals - commenting that they both had screwed the sketch up. And boy did they ever - their variance between the two measurements of the 2nd floor was something like 700sf(!) One of them had to torture (ie cut way down) the first floor measurements to get a GLA total close to county records - it was the worst sketch I'd ever seen. The other one got the first floor right but went way off on the second floor due to multiple hidden attic spaces/crazy angles making a traditional interior wall measurement near-impossible.

The house had so many walls and angles that were nigh impossible to accurately measure so as to make your head spin. So - what to do?

1. Measure carefully and make sure you get the dimensions of ALL walls - do it 3, 4 times if necessary. Outside AND inside if necessary;
2. Take lots of angled exterior photos that show ALL the angles & sides of the house - so you could refer to them when doing the sketch;
3. Google Earth - HELP!!! (This last one was KEY to helping me "solve" the "Rubik's Cube" mystery of the 2nd floor, because what could be hidden on the inside could not be hidden from the "eye-in-the-sky". The actual exterior roof lines of the 2nd floor as seen from space turned out be the "missing piece" helping me to fit the pieces of the puzzle together).

Did it take me a LOOONG time to do this sketch back at the office? You bet it did. But I made sure I had left no stone unturned before I left the inspection.

My final GLA measurement was within about 50sf of county records (which were based on the original filed plans). And unlike the prior appraisers on this puppy I made NOTHING up. Just solved the puzzle using the above methods.

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

How many of you are find that ANSI is not the predominant measuring source with your governing entities that are supposed to be the knowledgeable sources for square footage? I was at a house the other day and because of the new ANSI measurement standards that we must follow, the house was 140ish sf larger because it has 2 stairwells that descend with nothing above them. One of my comps happened to be a model match for the subject but because the way the county tax assessor is reporting it, it was basically considered a smaller property. I don't adjust for anything smaller than 100 sf, so should I be adjusting for the 140ish sf difference because now I have to add in staircases or just state that I adjusted for everything else that was over 100 sf but this one because it's a model match and the new ANSI standards are screwing everything up?

So how far off are we going to be with all of our comps now that every single time you have a 2+ story dwelling with an open staircase that was never considered by the taxing entity? I just ran across it again for a new construction townhome, and you know they only have like 4 whole plans for the subdivision, so it's easy to tell which plan it is when your looking at it. You know the governing bodies will not change the way they are doing things, so why did Fannie think it was a good idea to do this knowing that we use these sources for information? I know that the tax entity is not always right but lately on the more recent and new construction homes, they have been very very close to what I would measure on the old standards. Also, if they did decide to start using ANSI, how many homeowners would be screwed with higher taxes because all of a sudden they found 140+ sf that they can start making money off of?

Always been this way. I have always had to deal with it, open foyers and open family rooms (in some cases).

 

[Tim Hicks (Texas)]

Model matches. Here is Texas we have models with several different options (optional second floor, optional game room, optional media room, optional bath, etc). Be careful when considering model matches. They may look the same on the outside, but be quite different on the inside. Here, county tax records can be spot on and hundreds of feet off on many properties. Some counties are better than other counties, some are worse. Houses don't grow when they are watered like plants, yet people will know their builder plan stated 2400 sf, but when tax records say 2700 sf the will put that on the MLS. Don't be shocked when the appraisal shows 2400 sf. It is all a part of the appraisal job and discrepancies of living area will be there no matter what measuring system you use.

Let me ask you this, is it fair that newer homes are based on builder plans filed with the county when older homes were measured to the nearest foot? Countless times, I have seen the wrong plan filed with the tax office, is that the appraiser's fault? Have you ever had seen MLS builder sales listed with the base floor plan, but you know for a fact that home had the optional upstairs media room and is actually 300 sf larger because you were the appraiser on that house. The point is there is no perfect system and we will always finds descrepancies in GLA no matter what system we use or the used.

 

[Fernando]

Model matches. Here is Texas we have models with several different options (optional second floor, optional game room, optional media room, optional bath, etc). Be careful when considering model matches. They may look the same on the outside, but be quite different on the inside. Here, county tax records can be spot on and hundreds of feet off on many properties. Some counties are better than other counties, some are worse. Houses don't grow when they are watered like plants, yet people will know their builder plan stated 2400 sf, but when tax records say 2700 sf the will put that on the MLS. Don't be shocked when the appraisal shows 2400 sf. It is all a part of the appraisal job and discrepancies of living area will be there no matter what measuring system you use.

Let me ask you this, is it fair that newer homes are based on builder plans filed with the county when older homes were measured to the nearest foot? Countless times, I have seen the wrong plan filed with the tax office, is that the appraiser's fault? Have you ever had seen MLS builder sales listed with the base floor plan, but you know for a fact that home had the optional upstairs media room and is actually 300 sf larger because you were the appraiser on that house. The point is there is no perfect system and we will always finds descrepancies in GLA no matter what system we use or the used.

If we know the discrepancies with public record GLA, we consider that in our adjustments and reconciliation.
We adjust our analysis knowing the abnormalities of the records. It's always been part of our appraisal development in which ANSI would not have made a difference.

 

[Andee]

Alsie35 has the answer measure to the nearest 1/16" and you are ANSI compliant.

That sketch looks a lot like houses I have come across here and I have used all the methods you refer to, especially when I'm dealing with a dwelling that is over 4,000 sf. My most complicated house took me 5 hours to measure and sketch onsite...but hey, I guess that's what happens when you take on 16,000+ sf (5,000 sf was a walkout basement), the other two stories were just a big house. I'm just running into the issue where 2 properties have the same exact square footage in tax records but because of the new standards, the comp is smaller, and so now I have extra comments that I have to deal with because we all know that the county or city is not going to change the way they do their measuring.

 

[Andee]

Model matches. Here is Texas we have models with several different options (optional second floor, optional game room, optional media room, optional bath, etc). Be careful when considering model matches. They may look the same on the outside, but be quite different on the inside. Here, county tax records can be spot on and hundreds of feet off on many properties. Some counties are better than other counties, some are worse. Houses don't grow when they are watered like plants, yet people will know their builder plan stated 2400 sf, but when tax records say 2700 sf the will put that on the MLS. Don't be shocked when the appraisal shows 2400 sf. It is all a part of the appraisal job and discrepancies of living area will be there no matter what measuring system you use.

Let me ask you this, is it fair that newer homes are based on builder plans filed with the county when older homes were measured to the nearest foot? Countless times, I have seen the wrong plan filed with the tax office, is that the appraiser's fault? Have you ever had seen MLS builder sales listed with the base floor plan, but you know for a fact that home had the optional upstairs media room and is actually 300 sf larger because you were the appraiser on that house. The point is there is no perfect system and we will always finds descrepancies in GLA no matter what system we use or the used.

I understand that model matches on the outside may look the same but these two were truly a model match, townhomes never change, you get what you get. The other was a 4,000+ sf house, which may have had some differences as I did see one that was the same floor plan until you hit a media room, the other was exactly the same thing, and unless there was a room that they didn't take a picture of, it was the same exact layout as well, because they like to showoff as much as possible.

As for the floor plans, actually what I have seen by many in the counties that I work with is that MLS will put a square footage for the floorplan, but by the time you look at the county records, it can be off by a few feet, or a few hundred feet, so I'm guessing someone is actually measuring what is being built there because I was usually not far off from that.

 

[TruJa]

ANSI allows you to only measure plans, or only measure the exterior as long as you properly disclose this. Granted, that isn't what Fannie wants on a 1004, but it is how one of my local assessor's offices usually does it. Just reconcile the data and make adjustments using reason and logic, as we always should have been doing anyway.