The problem with adding an "appraiser" tag onto these non-appraisal activities is that they fall well outside the definition of "appraisal practice". It's like saying you are a USPAP-compliant Remodeler or a USPAP-compliant Architect. And that's a problem that goes far beyond the mere semantic argument and straight into the heart of who is doing what and how it's being used.
If you want to build an inspection/management business and develop a high standard of practice for it then there's nothing wrong with that. But don't conflate those other services which include activities that non-appraisers perform and which fall under the definition of "valuation services" with the much narrower subset of services that only appraisers do and which fall under the definition of "appraisal practice".
I can't agree with that. Inspection is inspection. The only reason we have a "home inspector" is because:
1. There are cases where the client just wants an inspection and not an appraisal. But still that would simply be an SOW for the appraiser,
2. Most appraisers are not capable of inspecting beyond a certain point; e.g, they don't have moisture and heat detectors, or deep knowledge of building pathology. In the UK, they do. It's just a question of degree. Moisture affects the structural integrity of the building and thus value, Heat loss affects heating costs and thus value, Inspection is inspection.
a) And related to this, is that most lenders and GSEs simply don't care enough to determine the complete condition of a structure, the VA and FHA being exceptions - to a certain limited degree.
My preference would be a very complete inspection, enough to make a good estimate about deferred maintenance, a good prediction about future maintenance costs,
If you knew how I do valuation, then you would understand. My center of focus for valuation is on the relative condition, quality of construction, view, functional utility, aesthetics and other subjective features of the SUBJECT property.
