Above Grade & Below Grade Areas

[Alan Simmons]

To me the proper GLA is the one that best represents the realized price. If the buyer and seller used what was in the MLS (correct or not) to make decisions then that is what should be used (qualified of course). If the buyer and seller relied upon the public records then that is what should be used. The object is not to be “correct” but to best reflect the market.


By the way I include the ANSI statement in my reports. In Alabama ANSI is mandatory. However I still combine (in the grid) below grade areas into the GLA when it best reflects the market.

 

[Mike Garrett RAA]

Alan...we can choose to disagree on "combining square footage"; however, if you are, in fact, stating you use ANSI and then don't...you have produced a mis-leading appraisal report.

As far as using MLS...it's your call. I personally know of several cases right here in River City where the agents were sued, and lost, because their measurements were wrong.. The one that influenced me the most was a real estate agent who came to work for me back when I was a broker manager for a larger real estate company. She had just settled a law suit for $10,000 for mis-stating the square footage of a multi-level home by 200 square feet. It left a lasting impression on me. This was before E & O insurance was common for real estate agents.

In any event, we are at the mercy of our data sources. I have disclaimers in my addenda, USPAP ID page, and scope of work disclosure. "Information is from sources deemed reliable but not guaranteed". That is a paraphrase but gets the point across. If I am going to lay this off on someone else...I prefer it to be the government.

 

[Randy Beigh]

Some of you act like there are bonus points for getting the sketch to the nearest 1/2 inch.

Mike G is correct in that one is safer using the public records. One can always say he relied on the public records, which is a verifable source. Relying on non-public records that may or may not be correct is going to be a tough sell. The same line of reasoning is for anybody(AVM companies or real estate agents) relying on appraisal data to do their jobs. There is no liability with using public records and plenty of liability using non-public data.

 

[Alan Simmons]

Mike wrote, “stating you use ANSI and then don't...you have produced a mis-leading appraisal report.”

ANSI is just the standard describing “the process to be followed in measuring and calculating the square footage of detached and attached single family houses.”

It is not defined as a standard for comparison and/or defining the market. So why give it power over the market?

What is misleading about accurately (according to ANSI) describing the subject on page 1 of the URAR and accurately (as best as possible according to the market) describing the subject in the sales grid? They are not mutually exclusive; as such they can easily be reconciled.

For example…

According to ANSI the subject has 1000 GLA and 1000 below-grade area. These measurements (that are based upon ANSI) have been combined in the grid to better reflect the local market. Additionally the MLS listings for comparables 1 & 2 did not segregate the below-grade area from the GLA and the tax records about such are ambiguous at best.


Also, public records in my area are not very accurate. They reflect the assessors’ parameters not what really exist.

 

[Dan Leggett]

Originally posted by Edd Gillespie@Jun 30 2005, 06:06 AM
...
Do you think it is trespassing to measure with disto from the street? Isn't too different from taking pics, is it?

Hmmm, my arguement would be that the data for a camera is collected at the face of the lens on the public street. The data collected for the disto is at the end of the beam, which would be on the private property. I don't think I would flash a laser through a property in rural Mississippi unannounced, I'm afraid the next thing I would see would be them flashing their laser back at me, and it ain't gonna be a disto.

Quality of data varies from market to market. In rural areas such as mine, data is limited and is used over & over & over. If the square footage is from a questionable source knock on the door and ask if you can measure their house. You at least get a chance to leave a card and let them brag on their new purchase. You may even find items that the original data source overlooked ie: "this is a bricked up house trailer, the back wall was never finished, septic tank - what's a septic tank?"

 

[Steve Owen]

You are comparing measuring to the inch to the 1/4 foot. I never said anything about 1/4 ft, my comments are about measuring to the ft.

Determining rounding to the nearest three inches seems like exactly the same thing as determining rounding to the nearest foot so far as the difficulty of the decision making at each step. I've never been so sloppy as to do it to the nearest foot, so I can't say for sure, but it doesn't seem any different to me. When I first started out I rounded to the nearest half foot. Here is what happened - at the end of the measuring process there were frequent times when the front of the house did not match the back of the house because of rounding. You cannot tell me the same thing doesn't happen when you round to the nearest foot. If anything it would happen more often. Actually, the number of times you don't hit right on the mark and have to round will happen more frequently the larger your rounding decision is. Once in a while a house will be exactly 40 feet in width, so no rounding is needed. More often, you will hit 40'3" (or some other permutation of a 1/4 foot) right on the mark and not have to round. Almost every time, you hit the nearest inch (or very close to it) - so it's 40'4" or 40'5" - the number of times the tape falls right on 40' 4 and 1/2 inches is extremely rare.

So, your whole argument seems to be it's quicker and easier to do it the sloppy way and it really doesn't make any difference to the bottom line. You are wrong on the first point. On the second point... well, that depends.

I've done it to the nearest half foot before. I started rounding the the nearest three inches when I noticed what a difference it made. I started using ANSI standards and measuring to the nearest inch, taking it to the nearest tenth of a foot because that is the standard.

I can tell you from experience that it doesn't take any longer to measure to the nearest inch (in fact, it is quicker to do so). And, at the end of the process, when you round it to make it square it is much quicker and also more accurate if you measured to the inch.

Here's what happens in real life:

Take a rectangular 40' x 80' rancher. I measure the ends at 40'5" on one end and 40'6" on the other - I round that to 40.5' - I measure the sides as 79'11" on one side and 79'10" on the other - I call that 79.9' partly because I had more confidence in the larger measurement - GLA = 3,236.

40 x 80 would be 3,200. 41 x 80 would be 3,280. Which you going to use? Think it doesn't make much difference? It really doesn't on this house.

That is what happens on a very simple, rectangular house. But, the missed rounding guesses multiply on a larger, more irregular, two-story, etc. etc. Pretty soon you get to a point where it does make a difference.

Like I said before, ANSI is the standard for measuring residential properties. That's why I use it - it's the only standard in existence so far as I know.

Do whatever you want, but for an example of what can happen, read through this link

http://appraisersforum.com/forum/index.php...opic=29334&st=0

read all the way through it, the kicker is not until near the bottom of page two.

 

[Ariba]

If the house is 75 feet on a side, do you measure the slack in the tape in the middle. How many pounds of pressure do you use when you pull on the tape. The pull on the tape could be 3 inches difference. :rofl:

Ron
AppraiserPlus.com

 

[DTB]

Originally posted by Steve Owen@Jun 28 2005, 11:58 AM

That would depend on whether you are using ANSI standards for measuring the residence. ANSI is a nationwide standard. My understanding is that FANNIE wants appraisers to use ANSI, otherwise, there is no absolute requirement that you use it. But, if you use ANSI you must use all of it - you cannot pick and choose which of the measurement standards to follow.

ANSI says that if any portion of a level is below grade, then that entire level counts as below grade and not included in GLA. The only exception I am aware of is that if areas necessary for function are below then that level can be GLA; so, if the only kitchen is down there, then it can be GLA. So... IMHO, if you are not doing it according to ANSI (the only availble, consistent standard) then you are doing it wrong.

If ANSI is THE standard, and allows the below grade area to be included on only the most *** backward floor plan, what does that say about the credibility of ANSI?

 

[Phil Rice]

Steve, using your example:

79'11" on one side and 79'10" on the other

either the house is out of square, or one of your measurements is wrong (sloppy?)

I measure the ends at 40'5" on one end and 40'6" on the other

Once again, one of them is wrong. This is a good example, because in real life, we never know the “exactly” right size of the house.

You measure inches and convert to 1/10 ft = 40.5 x 79.9 = 3,235.95, rounded to 3236. I use 40 x 80 = 3,200. My way is faster, less complicated, and therefore, less prone to error. If you think worrying about inches is faster for you, then go for it.

If I measured the same walls, would I get exactly the same figures you did? Who knows? If we were different (for example, I measured 40’4” and 40’7”), would I be right and you wrong? You might be deeply concerned and lose sleep. I would not care. I would, in my own sloppy way, mark down 40 feet (count the 40 little squares = exactly 4 inches on my graph paper, and draw the line with my pencil), and move on.

Your calculation might be (slightly) more accurate than mine, but of course, we really never know the exact size of the house. My point is that the 36 sq ft difference would not change my opinion of value, not even a little bit.

I believe that things like condition and curb appeal matter way more than 36 sq feet. Lets face it, condition and curb appeal are not an exact measurement – it is a judgment call. And that is the point. While you are (wasting your time) deciding which measurement you have more confidence in

because I had more confidence in the larger measurement

, I am forming an opinion about curb appeal. Nothing sloppy about that.

 

[Mike Garrett RAA]

the house has 1199.667 square feet :rainfro: Ok, Mr Einstein, if you say so.