2 Parcels on One Appraisal?

[Mark to market]

You might find something seaching under the term 'blanket mortgage'.

 

[Lee Lansford]

You might find something seaching under the term 'blanket mortgage'.

How might that address the question as to "H&B Use as Improved?"

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

The highest and best use might be to sell the second lot (excess land) but if the lender asks for both properties to be appraised, what is the issue? Yes, the assignment will require two valuations and may reek havoc with the blessed form, but if the bank is lending on the total, what would prevent you from valuing it as such? Because the highest and best use can't be addressed adequately by checking one of the boxes on the form?

In eminent domain work we often see similar situations where there are two separate tax parcels deeded as one and used as one (unity of use, unity of title). The highest and best use may be to address portions of the site as excess land but the valuation is done as if it is a single entity/property. The highest and best use is my call but what is to be valued is the client's call. Gotta think outside your little check boxes!!!

 

[The Warrior Monk]

The first issue is whether they are single and separate (separate parcel IDs do not necessarily indicate single-and-separate parcels).

If they are single and separate, the the second issue is highest and best use.

If the highest and best use is as two parcels, then the third issue is what the lender wants done. Do they want they value of the portfolio?

 

[Lee Lansford]

The highest and best use might be to sell the second lot (excess land) but if the lender asks for both properties to be appraised, what is the issue? Yes, the assignment will require two valuations and may reek havoc with the blessed form, but if the bank is lending on the total, what would prevent you from valuing it as such? Because the highest and best use can't be addressed adequately by checking one of the boxes on the form?

In eminent domain work we often see similar situations where there are two separate tax parcels deeded as one and used as one (unity of use, unity of title). The highest and best use may be to address portions of the site as excess land but the valuation is done as if it is a single entity/property. The highest and best use is my call but what is to be valued is the client's call. Gotta think outside your little check boxes!!!

I believe (see OP) that the problem is that the client wants a single opinion of MV. Given what the OP has shared, I don't see how such is possible assuming (I don't believe I'm going too far out on the proverbial limb with this) that the appraisal is for lending use and the appraisal is communicated via the current Fannie Mae form 1004. If I am correct, there is a bit of a problem as to what follows once the appraiser Xs the "no" box when responding to the question "Is the H&B Use of the subject property...the present use?"

 

[Lee Lansford]

The first issue is whether they are single and separate (separate parcel IDs do not necessarily indicate single-and-separate parcels).

If they are single and separate, the the second issue is highest and best use.

If the highest and best use is as two parcels, then the third issue is what the lender wants done. Do they want they value of the portfolio?

I'll bet that the client is trying to put a square peg into a round hole.

 

[The Warrior Monk]

I'll bet that the client is trying to put a square peg into a round hole.

That often is the case for anything GSE-bound. However, when it comes to FRTs, that isn't always the case. I figure I'd cover all bases.

 

[Webbed Feet]

The highest and best use might be to sell the second lot (excess land) but if the lender asks for both properties to be appraised, what is the issue? Yes, the assignment will require two valuations and may reek havoc with the blessed form, but if the bank is lending on the total, what would prevent you from valuing it as such? Because the highest and best use can't be addressed adequately by checking one of the boxes on the form?

In eminent domain work we often see similar situations where there are two separate tax parcels deeded as one and used as one (unity of use, unity of title). The highest and best use may be to address portions of the site as excess land but the valuation is done as if it is a single entity/property. The highest and best use is my call but what is to be valued is the client's call. Gotta think outside your little check boxes!!!

If you ask me somebody needs to think outside of commercial work and shift gears to residential work. The problems are NOT the same! Your two little words above trigger the use of an HC. You can mock the form concept of reporting over checkboxes, that doesn't alter the fact the appraiser involved could be in violation of modifying a SOW that it is preprinted cannot be modified. Thereby ending up with a misleading report per quite a few state appraisal boards.

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

I believe (see OP) that the problem is that the client wants a single opinion of MV. Given what the OP has shared, I don't see how such is possible assuming (I don't believe I'm going too far out on the proverbial limb with this) that the appraisal is for lending use and the appraisal is communicated via the current Fannie Mae form 1004. If I am correct, there is a bit of a problem as to what follows once the appraiser Xs the "no" box when responding to the question "Is the H&B Use of the subject property...the present use?"

How about "see attached" and explain the highest and best use. All have assumed that the "extra" lot has independent value and could be a separate building lot. What about supply and demand in this market--owner might have a SFR with a larger than typical lot. Much research would be necessary before "checking" anything or explaining in greater detail.

 

[Lee Lansford]

How about "see attached" and explain the highest and best use. All have assumed that the "extra" lot has independent value and could be a separate building lot. What about supply and demand in this market--owner might have a SFR with a larger than typical lot. Much research would be necessary before "checking" anything or explaining in greater detail.

Regarding the 2nd (vacant) parcel, the OP offered that the vacant parcel has independent value (that is, neither surplus land nor land necessary to support the improvements that are located on the other parcel).