Advice please My subject property (and every comparable) is actually +/- 146sf larger than the MLS & CAD show

[GGGinSA]

Spoiler: I’m considering using an extraordinary assumption on the square footage of every sale comparable.

My assignment is a cookie cutter 3BR, 2bath 1682sf single story built in 2018, the “Whitney” plan. I found six sale comparables plus one active listing all having 3BR & 2 bath ranging in size from 1680 ft to 1688sf, all built in 2018 and 2019 by the same builder.

I inspected the subject property, measured, and took my comp photos. Returning to the office I sketch the subject and find it is not 1680sf, it actually measures 1826 ft.

I’m thinking: dammit, my once near perfect appraisal requiring almost zero adjustments is no longer bracketed by size, and will require another trip 30 miles out to get a new set of comparables.

But the more I research the comparables, and look at the comp listing photos, i’ll be damned if room by room, they aren’t identical to the photos and layout of the subject. I’m pretty sure it’s a case of every real estate agent relying on the square footage the CAD reports, with the CAD presuming 1682 sf every time they pick up another Whitney plan by blueprint without actually measuring. It’s like the whole neighborhood with this plan is always gonna be about 140 ft. off.

I’m certain my subject and all comparable are the same Whitney plan and square footage. I’ve tried to verify it with the builder, but since this neighborhood has been finished out for three years I’ve had no luck, the original sales office has scattered to new developments and don’t have access to old records. BTW the Whitney plan does have available buyer upgrades, but none of the upgrades affect the square footage of the home.

i’ve considered going back out and taking new comp photos, however, there were only 13 sales to begin with: two are extreme high outliers, the rest have large size difference or are a different builder with slightly higher quality. And I can’t expand my search radius because the surrounding communities vary too much

What are the risks of valuing using a carefully worded extraordinary assumption stating that the six comparables used in the report, appear to be the same plan as the subject, though reported to be smaller, should not have a size adjustment, and should be assumed to be approximately the same size as the subject, and to make a size adjustment would lead to a misleading result yada yada yada?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Fernando]

Spoiler: I’m considering using an extraordinary assumption on the square footage of every sale comparable.

My assignment is a cookie cutter 3BR, 2bath 1682sf single story built in 2018, the “Whitney” plan. I found six sale comparables plus one active listing all having 3BR & 2 bath ranging in size from 1680 ft to 1688sf, all built in 2018 and 2019 by the same builder.

I inspected the subject property, measured, and took my comp photos. Returning to the office I sketch the subject and find it is not 1680sf, it actually measures 1826 ft.

You measured using ANSI standard and measurement is 1,826 sf. Welcome to ANSI.
In tract homes, builders square footage doesn't match what we measure. Fortunately for me, my measurements are withing 50-100 feet different and are not that significant.
I know my area and can tell which homes are same floor plan as subject thus I don't need to do adjustments.
If you do need to do adjustments for different size homes (best to stick with same floor plan comps), I would be more "flexible" in determining the appropriate adjustments. Low adjustments generally don't change market range that much.

I’m thinking: dammit, my once near perfect appraisal requiring almost zero adjustments is no longer bracketed by size, and will require another trip 30 miles out to get a new set of comparables.

But the more I research the comparables, and look at the comp listing photos, i’ll be damned if room by room, they aren’t identical to the photos and layout of the subject. I’m pretty sure it’s a case of every real estate agent relying on the square footage the CAD reports, with the CAD presuming 1682 sf every time they pick up another Whitney plan by blueprint without actually measuring. It’s like the whole neighborhood with this plan is always gonna be about 140 ft. off.

I’m certain my subject and all comparable are the same Whitney plan and square footage. I’ve tried to verify it with the builder, but since this neighborhood has been finished out for three years I’ve had no luck, the original sales office has scattered to new developments and don’t have access to old records. BTW the Whitney plan does have available buyer upgrades, but none of the upgrades affect the square footage of the home.

i’ve considered going back out and taking new comp photos, however, there were only 13 sales to begin with: two are extreme high outliers, the rest have large size difference or are a different builder with slightly higher quality. And I can’t expand my search radius because the surrounding communities vary too much

What are the risks of valuing using a carefully worded extraordinary assumption stating that the six comparables used in the report, appear to be the same plan as the subject, though reported to be smaller, should not have a size adjustment, and should be assumed to be approximately the same size as the subject, and to make a size adjustment would lead to a misleading result yada yada yada?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Mike Ault]

Spoiler: I’m considering using an extraordinary assumption on the square footage of every sale comparable.

My assignment is a cookie cutter 3BR, 2bath 1682sf single story built in 2018, the “Whitney” plan. I found six sale comparables plus one active listing all having 3BR & 2 bath ranging in size from 1680 ft to 1688sf, all built in 2018 and 2019 by the same builder.

I inspected the subject property, measured, and took my comp photos. Returning to the office I sketch the subject and find it is not 1680sf, it actually measures 1826 ft.

I think your risk exposure would be quite low. You have done a good job of explaining the rationale behind what you're doing and why. I would wager that your assumptions would prove to be correct if challenged. You can sometimes verify things like that from an aerial perspective by using the measure functions within Google Earth or other GIS programs. You're making a good faith effort to relate information that you feel is the most reliable and I would cut and paste your post into a short sales comparison addendum and not lose any sleep over it at all.

 

[Fernando]

Doing local appraisals, I know how to deal with such properties in my area. OP is out of area 30 miles thus not aware of the nuances in the subdivision. Need to do more work in figuring out what's happening.

 

[Mike Ault]

Doing local appraisals, I know how to deal with such properties in my area. OP is out of area 30 miles thus not aware of the nuances in the subdivision. Need to do more work in figuring out what's happening.

The OP is in Texas. He could easily be the only appraiser within 100 miles. Builders out here pay their subs by the SF. You will frequently hear about two sets, one with the correct square footage and the other with 10% less that they show to their subcontractors, that way they get a little more work out of their carpenters & painters for free. Sounds like the appraisal district got their plans from the swindled. I always feel bad when the painters will come up and quiz me on the square footage I measured because they are absolutely convinced it's bigger than what the builder told them it was and there is no way I'm going to tell them and get into the middle of that mess.

 

[J Grant]

Spoiler: I’m considering using an extraordinary assumption on the square footage of every sale comparable.

My assignment is a cookie cutter 3BR, 2bath 1682sf single story built in 2018, the “Whitney” plan. I found six sale comparables plus one active listing all having 3BR & 2 bath ranging in size from 1680 ft to 1688sf, all built in 2018 and 2019 by the same builder.

I inspected the subject property, measured, and took my comp photos. Returning to the office I sketch the subject and find it is not 1680sf, it actually measures 1826 ft.

I’m thinking: dammit, my once near perfect appraisal requiring almost zero adjustments is no longer bracketed by size, and will require another trip 30 miles out to get a new set of comparables.

But the more I research the comparables, and look at the comp listing photos, i’ll be damned if room by room, they aren’t identical to the photos and layout of the subject. I’m pretty sure it’s a case of every real estate agent relying on the square footage the CAD reports, with the CAD presuming 1682 sf every time they pick up another Whitney plan by blueprint without actually measuring. It’s like the whole neighborhood with this plan is always gonna be about 140 ft. off.

I’m certain my subject and all comparable are the same Whitney plan and square footage. I’ve tried to verify it with the builder, but since this neighborhood has been finished out for three years I’ve had no luck, the original sales office has scattered to new developments and don’t have access to old records. BTW the Whitney plan does have available buyer upgrades, but none of the upgrades affect the square footage of the home.

i’ve considered going back out and taking new comp photos, however, there were only 13 sales to begin with: two are extreme high outliers, the rest have large size difference or are a different builder with slightly higher quality. And I can’t expand my search radius because the surrounding communities vary too much

What are the risks of valuing using a carefully worded extraordinary assumption stating that the six comparables used in the report, appear to be the same plan as the subject, though reported to be smaller, should not have a size adjustment, and should be assumed to be approximately the same size as the subject, and to make a size adjustment would lead to a misleading result yada yada yada?

Thanks in advance.

We are not allowed to add an EA if it is a URAR form for lending (I assume this is)

Just state what you found, that per floorplans, ext observation and photos the comps appear to the be same builder model as the subject, with a measured 1826 of subject vs public records of 1680 sf. See when you search any of the comps if you can find the original first tale sale which is often listed on MLS with the builder model name in the comments.

 

[Andy Taylor]

Why not call some of your peers in the area and see if any have appraised any of the comps to see what they found with respects to the square footage.

 

[alebrewer]

Not an uncommon occurance. The way I've treated it in the past is to report the GLA based on the 'most credible' source (your decision as to what that is), and then not make any adjustment for GLA in the grid. Remember - just becuse there's a line item for an adjustment, doesn't mean you HAVE to make one. We adjust for elements of comparison that the market recognizes - if the market for these condo's recognizes that the GLA is incorrect, and that the elements of comparison are bedrooms or room count instead, you would just explain why you didn't make adjustment...

 

[ramrcdk]

Spoiler: I’m considering using an extraordinary assumption on the square footage of every sale comparable.

My assignment is a cookie cutter 3BR, 2bath 1682sf single story built in 2018, the “Whitney” plan. I found six sale comparables plus one active listing all having 3BR & 2 bath ranging in size from 1680 ft to 1688sf, all built in 2018 and 2019 by the same builder.

subject and find it is not 1680sf, it actually measures 1826 ft.

But the more I research the comparables, and look at the comp listing photos, i’ll be damned if room by room, they aren’t identical to the photos and layout of the subject. I’m pretty sure it’s a case of every real estate agent relying on the square footage the CAD reports, with the CAD presuming 1682 sf every time they pick up another Whitney plan by blueprint without actually measuring. It’s like the whole neighborhood with this plan is always gonna be about 140 ft. off.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...............................................
What are the risks of valuing using a carefully worded extraordinary assumption stating that the six comparables used in the report, appear to be the same plan as the subject, though reported to be smaller, should not have a size adjustment, and should be assumed to be approximately the same size as the subject, and to make a size adjustment would lead to a misleading result yada yada yada?

Thanks in advance.

HEY don't overstress & then OVERdo
Your research found: similar option- builder floorplans, right???? Ever do Drafting or Builder Plan review??? Where does the @@GLA a builder uses in marketing come FROM? Measured from plans & to the interior sheathing? YES.
Once actually measured, going to differ. Do they all-ways: Include the exterior Covering, like brick, vinyl? NOPE.
ALSO: How many "tape pulls" (or laser beeps) make up the GLA?

WHAT YOU HAVE is typical of builder's market & through the decades and you likely just stumbled onto this and evolved it into a "concern".

Builder use plans and never want to advertise less GLA than they market-sell. Then onto the tax records where the initial plan gets the Builder Permit but always -may not be the Plan actually constructed or may include Option changes purchased during the Change-Order Phase of construction.
Then onto actual measuring: Holly Molley' laser, old tape, skippy, etc.

EO: is NOT needed.
What is needed is: a comment stating the grid-sales used in the SCA Section are weighted examples of the same/similar floorplan GLA of the subject property. Where extracted evidence provided on the grid, the market does not recognize differences in the reported total of GLA/Heated Sq FT.
Use of the comment not requiring GLA/heated area adjustment is via use of MLS descriptions and marketing photos indicating subject same market appeal. Therefore, based upon market reactions to the GLA/Heated area, there is no evidence for use of a market extracted variance/adjustment.

POINT: do you have a threshold of where you make a SF adjustment?? Market always dictated any adjustments I made on the Grid. And always there was a " Buffer " where the market did not care or recognize.
Could be a mere 20' from a Highrise Panoramic View - to a same-builder house on every other lot. The later rarely ever had a SF variance ESPECTIALLY when market could care less. They bought the floorplan NOT the GLA. The highrise they bought the view & better be at least what was marketed as GLA

 

[norapp]

I have had this happen, more since ANSI. For the subject I put my ANSI measurements for the GLA but also make a comment what it shows on the tax record. For the comps I report what is on the tax records in the grid. I make no adjustment and explain it in the comments. I have had nothing bounce back to me. I have spoken to a few reviewers since ANSI and they are not sure what the right way to do it is so just explain your reasoning.