Lot Functionality in the SCA

[ZZGAMAZZ]

I'm grappling with "functionality" and "superadequacy."

The subject is a 5000+ sf SFR on a 10000 sf lot with a panoramic view of the downtown LA ciy skyline, located in one of several relatively upscale subdivision markets in south Los Angeles
The atypical [possibly unique] characterics pertain to a 3-story configuration, on a Steeply sloping lot--that allow for a GLA much larger than the local standard, and a view otherwise available only from flat lots much higher in elevation.

I'm "guessing" that the 3-story configuration warrants "reproduction" rather than "replacement" cost factors in the CA, but unnaware whether that issue needs to be addressed in the SCA, . . . or whether the 3-story design is functionally superior to a typical 2-story design on a similar, sloping lot . . . or whether the presumably, otherwise inferiority of the subject lot compared to lots similar is size but flat is compensated by the efficient 3-story design.

I'm able to bracket lot size, GLA, construction date, quality/condition, location, etc., etc.--although none of those comps would IMO be cosidereed as "competing." [Probably just food for thought because nobody in he mortgage underwriting chain will notice, or care about, but the peculiar subject features got me stumped--although before the AF advises me to simply "move on" I am doing so. LOLLLLL

 

[J Grant]

This is imo one of the times where it is valuable to talk to RE agents -with all their faults, RE agents have their pulse on the market and understand what buyers want -so pose the question to them but leave out the technical appraiser speak.

If the subject is located on a steep sloping lot, I would assume other houses nearby sold on steep sloping lots - always your best comps. Even if the homes sold on steep lots are not direct comps, you can see if the market punished, rewarded, or was neutral about the lack of more usable lawn area, vs the location and views such lots deliver.

 

[George Hatch]

Sales history shows what? Because I have never seen a difference in pricing or marketability between 2-sty vs 3-sty homes on hillside lots in this region.

 

[glenn walker]

Stop it you know there is no measurable difference in that market. You need to stay in the Riverside County flat lands.

 

[Surf Cat]

You're overcomplicating it. Stick with comps on steep Lots with caissons and Jetliner views and only sloped lots. Hollywood Hills Flat Lots in comparison to sloped lots are a completely different animal. Bracketing unusable, steep site area is less important than getting comparables with that similar setup and view. Go back in time 36 months for a tri level if you have to.

I'm able to bracket lot size, GLA, construction date, quality/condition, location, etc., etc.--although none of those comps would IMO be cosidereed as "competing."

What does this mean? Are you saying none of your comps are on hillsides?

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

hiovercomplicating it. Stick with comps on steep Lots with caissons and Jetliner views and only sloped lots. Hollywood Hills Flat Lots in comparison to sloped lots are a completely different animal. Bracketing unusable, steep site area is less important than getting comparables with that similar setup and view. Go back in time 36 months for a tri level if you have to.


What does this mean? Are you saying none of your comps are on hillsides?

Correct. The subject GLA based on its 3-story configuration is larger than an estimated 95% of the SFR's within a 2-mile radius throughout this densely-populated area in which 40% of the improvements are retail/commercial. The subject's non-PUD subdivision is comprised primarily of custom SFR's on a flat plateau atop steeply-slopiing entrances, where all properties within 25% of the subject's 5500 sf living just happen to be located--although the subject fronts a public road about 75% up the steep acceess. I did find one other 3-story SFR but it's a Fr Provincial Mansion 1300 sqft smaller, 30 years newer, on a totally flat lot. Just hung up on seeking a logical quantitattive way to determine difffereces because of the subject's complex features. Also wondering whether cost expense to rebuild the improveements--3 stories on a steeply sloping lot would warrant "reproduction" rather than "replacement" cost factors....and kinda trying to avoid even considering implications of the septic system near the highest point of the lot behind the SFR.....

 

[sputnam]

I'm grappling with "functionality" and "superadequacy."

The subject is a 5000+ sf SFR on a 10000 sf lot with a panoramic view of the downtown LA ciy skyline, located in one of several relatively upscale subdivision markets in south Los Angeles
The atypical [possibly unique] characterics pertain to a 3-story configuration, on a Steeply sloping lot--that allow for a GLA much larger than the local standard, and a view otherwise available only from flat lots much higher in elevation.

I'm "guessing" that the 3-story configuration warrants "reproduction" rather than "replacement" cost factors in the CA, but unnaware whether that issue needs to be addressed in the SCA, . . . or whether the 3-story design is functionally superior to a typical 2-story design on a similar, sloping lot . . . or whether the presumably, otherwise inferiority of the subject lot compared to lots similar is size but flat is compensated by the efficient 3-story design.

I'm able to bracket lot size, GLA, construction date, quality/condition, location, etc., etc.--although none of those comps would IMO be cosidereed as "competing." [Probably just food for thought because nobody in he mortgage underwriting chain will notice, or care about, but the peculiar subject features got me stumped--although before the AF advises me to simply "move on" I am doing so. LOLLLLL

hmm.... Reproduction cost vs replacement cost is more about building a structure having the same utility as the subject using current building standards and materials.

Many appraisers are, um, blessed with assignments that involve atypcal properties. There is no magic. Sometimes you get an assignment that takes more work.

 

[J Grant]

Correct. The subject GLA based on its 3-story configuration is larger than an estimated 95% of the SFR's within a 2-mile radius throughout this densely-populated area in which 40% of the improvements are retail/commercial. The subject's non-PUD subdivision is comprised primarily of custom SFR's on a flat plateau atop steeply-slopiing entrances, where all properties within 25% of the subject's 5500 sf living just happen to be located--although the subject fronts a public road about 75% up the steep acceess. I did find one other 3-story SFR but it's a Fr Provincial Mansion 1300 sqft smaller, 30 years newer, on a totally flat lot. Just hung up on seeking a logical quantitattive way to determine difffereces because of the subject's complex features. Also wondering whether cost expense to rebuild the improveements--3 stories on a steeply sloping lot would warrant "reproduction" rather than "replacement" cost factors....and kinda trying to avoid even considering implications of the septic system near the highest point of the lot behind the SFR.....

Why are you imposing a 2 mile radius? For unique or problem child properties, we can need to go further out, or further back in time. I typically go back three years, which is recent enough to develop a time adjustment - and I would use a couple of steep lot comps further away or older, along with closer/more recent sales on flatter lots.

 

[Sadie]

Correct. The subject GLA based on its 3-story configuration is larger than an estimated 95% of the SFR's within a 2-mile radius throughout this densely-populated area in which 40% of the improvements are retail/commercial. The subject's non-PUD subdivision is comprised primarily of custom SFR's on a flat plateau atop steeply-slopiing entrances, where all properties within 25% of the subject's 5500 sf living just happen to be located--although the subject fronts a public road about 75% up the steep acceess. I did find one other 3-story SFR but it's a Fr Provincial Mansion 1300 sqft smaller, 30 years newer, on a totally flat lot. Just hung up on seeking a logical quantitattive way to determine difffereces because of the subject's complex features. Also wondering whether cost expense to rebuild the improveements--3 stories on a steeply sloping lot would warrant "reproduction" rather than "replacement" cost factors....and kinda trying to avoid even considering implications of the septic system near the highest point of the lot behind the SFR.....

Don't over think it. Go back to basics. Approach each difference separately. If all the similarly sized homes are in a PUD, Use one of those and adjust for any location differences. If you are on a busy street, use a sale on a similar street and adjust for that. that. if you have a lot with no utility because of topography, find a sale with similar topography and adjust for the rest. Its a bit of a PITA, but doable.

 

[Sadie]

Why are you imposing a 2 mile radius? For unique or problem child properties, we can need to go further out, or further back in time. I typically go back three years, which is recent enough to develop a time adjustment - and I would use a couple of steep lot comps further away or older, along with closer/more recent sales on flatter lots.

I have gone back 8 years for one of these. Not a peep out of my client.