• 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.

1025 or 1004

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tawfik Ahdab said:
Ale,

See, the problem with you making blanket statements about ADUs being prohibited from being used as rentals, as you so self-assuredly contend, is that all it takes is a single contrary example to demolish your claim. Speaking of being a fool, you demonstrate it all by yourself (which is also often the case, as you say). By the way, I was simply trying to correct your mistaken post. It's you who is personalizing and insulting.

You quoted this passage:

​
28.52.3 Accessory dwellings (including garage and detached units) may be permitted in residential zoning districts (see regulations for the specific district, and the use charts, section 28.49), and shall conform to the height limitations of the main structure. No such accessory dwelling or quarters shall be used or occupied as a place of abode or residence. (bold added by me)​

Nowhere in the passage you quote does it explicitly exclude ADU rentals. In fact, the passage quoted seems to directly state that ADUs cannot be used as residences, which is curious (but that's another matter...)

So eat this instead:

https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/policy-and-research/ADUHandbookUpdate.pdf

On page 22 of that California government publication, it states

"J) Renter- and Owner-Occupancy

• Are rental terms allowed?Yes. Local agencies may require that the property be used for rentals of terms longer than 30 days. ADUs permitted ministerially, under subdivision (e), shall be rented for terms longer than 30 days. (Gov. Code, §65852.2, subds. (a)(6) and (e)(4).)"

Better luck next time. Your insults only reflect poorly on you, which to quote you, "is also often the case".
Click to expand...
But this follows. So rental of all units depends on whether or not any of the "units" are JADUs

Are there any owner-occupancy requirements for ADUs?No. Prior to recent legislation, ADU laws allowed local agencies to elect whether theprimary dwelling orADU was required to be occupied by an owner. The updates to State ADU Law removed the owner-occupancy requirement for newly created ADUs effective January 1, 2020. The new owner-occupancy exclusion is set to expire on December 31,2024; however, local agencies may not retroactively require owner-occupancy for ADUs permitted between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2024.However, should a property have both an ADU and JADU, JADU law requires owner occupancy of either the newly created JADU or the single-family residence. Under this specific circumstance, a lot with an ADU would be subject to owner-occupancy requirements. (Gov. Code, § 65852.22, subd. (a)(2)
 
Here's how our zoning ordinance regards such structures in R-1 single-family zoning –

Servant's or Caretaker's Quarters: A detached secondary Housing Unit located on a Lot with a Main Residential Structure and used as living quarters for persons employed on the Premises only and not for rent or use as a separate Housing Unit by persons other than those employed on the Premises, or their immediate Family.
 
All these examples demonstrate that various jurisdictions have various requirements for ADU occupancy. They do not establish a prohibition applying statewide, which was alebrewer’s contention.
 
Tawfik Ahdab said:
Alebrewer wrote:

“ADU's typically cannot be rented and are subordinate to the primary unit. In my market, properties zoned SF that have an additional living unit - by definition - are SF with ADU (as the 2nd unit cannot be rented). Such is not the case in CA (as I understand the CA laws)”

That is the opposite of the intent of having ADUs. The rental factor is a very strong incentive for their construction. Although each municipality has its own rules, the vast majority, if not all that I’m aware of, fully allow rentals. Many jurisdictions prohibit short term rentals of ADUs, requiring at least 30 days occupancy and with some requiring a minimum six months occupancy. It certainly varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but I’m not aware of any prohibition against rentals since in principle ADUs have been allowed statewide to help alleviate the housing shortage.
Click to expand...
In the past, ADUs were like InLaw units in that they were for family use and not rentals.
The state of CA has pushed ADUs to increase housing stock thus overriding local planning laws.
Many towns have to amend their laws to meet State standards. Some towns still slow to change. More work for appraisers to investigate. Ugh.
 
Tawfik Ahdab said:
All these examples demonstrate that various jurisdictions have various requirements for ADU occupancy. They do not establish a prohibition applying statewide, which was alebrewer’s contention.
Click to expand...
Take it back - I'll respond once more, as you've falsely accused me - not that that's anything new around here. If I said the all ADU's everywhere are 'prohibited' from being rented, please point me to that post.
 
Dublin ohio said:
Well all of this discussion is moot as it applies to the op. Because the OP doesn't have a clue as to wtf they actually have.
Click to expand...
Good point.

So back to OP - it seems like a H&BU analysis would be in order for the Fern. The first two tests are interchangeable - namely the 'legally permissible' nature of possible uses and the 'physically possible' nature of possible uses. As regards the legal portion - again, I think CA has relaxed the laws about not being able to rent ADU's, in which case, both units could be rented (if, in fact, there are two units). So then, according to the legal test - SF with ADU AND duplex would be possible 'legal' uses. As to the physically possible test - obviously it's physically possible if two units are already on the site. So, then, based on the first two tests (for CA - and based on my limited knowledge of the CA ADU laws) both duplex and SF would be legally permissible and physically possible. The next step (for me) would be to ascertain what the market participants are doing with such properties. If the market recognizes SF owner occupied with guest quarters as a more desirable use, then I'd lean that direction. If the market recognizes both units as rentable units, then I'd lean that direction. The obvious question is: how do you know what the market prefers? How are similar properties marketed and sold in MLS? What do discussions with investors elicit?
 
Dublin ohio said:
But this follows. So rental of all units depends on whether or not any of the "units" are JADUs

Are there any owner-occupancy requirements for ADUs?No. Prior to recent legislation, ADU laws allowed local agencies to elect whether theprimary dwelling orADU was required to be occupied by an owner. The updates to State ADU Law removed the owner-occupancy requirement for newly created ADUs effective January 1, 2020. The new owner-occupancy exclusion is set to expire on December 31,2024; however, local agencies may not retroactively require owner-occupancy for ADUs permitted between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2024.However, should a property have both an ADU and JADU, JADU law requires owner occupancy of either the newly created JADU or the single-family residence. Under this specific circumstance, a lot with an ADU would be subject to owner-occupancy requirements. (Gov. Code, § 65852.22, subd. (a)(2)
Click to expand...
This is first time I heard of JADUs. Are you referring to them as Junior ADUs?
 
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