ANSI Staircases

[CCAAMO]

In my market the stairs were always removed from the second floor. Stairs can range from 60sqft to 250 sqft. This makes for a problem with the standards change. I am now comparing model matches that have GLA adjustments due to stairs. the GLA of the subject suddenly gets bigger and is no longer a fair comparison to comparables that still use the old standard.

That's the problem, you could have a model matched comp but the subject is larger. If the stairs added say 100 sq ft extra to the subject's GLA, i would note in the explanation of the adjustments that As Per ANSI standards the subject is 100 sq ft larger than the builder recorded it at and as result the comps GLA does not reflect the stairs. As a result no GLA adjustment was made for any differences of less than *** sf ft.

 

[Amy Perkins]

I just completed the McKissock ANSI course and I am now completely confused as to the standard pertaining to staircases. So, from my understanding after this course, the finished staircase is counted as part of the finished area (GLA) on both the finished first and second floor. Is this correct? According to my understanding of the course, the only time a square footage deduction is made is when the staircase does not align with the second floor and obviously when there is a foyer area. Is this correct? The staircases are counted twice? I am so frustrated, I have taken the course, purchased and read the entire standard, researched online, and I cannot get a simple answer. Is the staircase counted as GLA on the first and second floor? If it is not, where do we subtract the staircase measurement, on the first or second floor? I am going insane, please help! McKissock makes you complete four case study examples and none of the examples subtract the staircase.

My understanding is that it is living area where you can actually walk with a 6-foot clearance above the ground. Since most of the time you can only walk on one level, the risers don't count.

 

[Ottomaddux]

That's the problem, you could have a model matched comp but the subject is larger. If the stairs added say 100 sq ft extra to the subject's GLA, i would note in the explanation of the adjustments that As Per ANSI standards the subject is 100 sq ft larger than the builder recorded it at and as result the comps GLA does not reflect the stairs. As a result no GLA adjustment was made for any differences of less than *** sf ft.

I had to drop an assignment because of the new ANSI standard. Local Measuring standards had an attached addition with one roof line and an outside entrance classed as GLA. ANSI said it was a Casita and not GLA. The Lender wanted me to change the GLA from 5200 sqft to 2300 sqft. That is a bit of a shift in value. I couldn't do it. I should include it was specifically built in a manner to be consistent with local standards to be classed as GLA.

 

[DWiley]

That is a bit of a shift in value.

If the change in the methodology used to report the GLA "shifts" the value, then there is a problem with the analysis.

 

[Overimprovement]

I had to drop an assignment because of the new ANSI standard. Local Measuring standards had an attached addition with one roof line and an outside entrance classed as GLA. ANSI said it was a Casita and not GLA. The Lender wanted me to change the GLA from 5200 sqft to 2300 sqft. That is a bit of a shift in value. I couldn't do it. I should include it was specifically built in a manner to be consistent with local standards to be classed as GLA.

This would have never been GLA, ANSI or otherwise, not sure what the issue is.

 

[Ottomaddux]

If the change in the methodology used to report the GLA "shifts" the value, then there is a problem with the analysis.

That is an asinine statement. When A change in standard elimantes half the GLA you have arbitrarily shifted the subject to a different market. In this market Casita's get about one quarter of the value of regular GLA. Based on the GLA usable comparable went from a median of 1.2 million to 400k. Analyze that.

 

[Ottomaddux]

This would have never been GLA, ANSI or otherwise, not sure what the issue is.

And yet in this market it was. It was taxed as GLA, It complied with local GLA standards, and it had been bought and sold as GLA three times before my appraisal. I am not going to be the one sued because the new lending standard cut their value by 60%.

 

[Overimprovement]

And yet in this market it was. It was taxed as GLA, It complied with local GLA standards, and it had been bought and sold as GLA three times before my appraisal. I am not going to be the one sued because the new lending standard cut their value by 60%.

You do know WHAT you call something is different than HOW it is valued right?

 

[Overimprovement]

That is an asinine statement. When A change in standard elimantes half the GLA you have arbitrarily shifted the subject to a different market. In this market Casita's get about one quarter of the value of regular GLA. Based on the GLA usable comparable went from a median of 1.2 million to 400k. Analyze that.

You need to think about what you are saying. The market does not care what YOU as the appraiser, or Fannie, or ANSI calls something. They perceive a certain value and are willing to pay for it. Nothing has changed concerning how the MARKET views things. We opine MARKET value, not ANSI GLA value.

 

[DWiley]

When A change in standard elimantes half the GLA you have arbitrarily shifted the subject to a different market. In this market Casita's get about one quarter of the value of regular GLA. Based on the GLA usable comparable went from a median of 1.2 million to 400k. Analyze that.

I appreciate you so clearly illustrating the accuracy of what I posted.