ANSI

[alebrewer]

In a profession of idiotic ideas and rules, measuring a house to the nearest 10th of a foot might be the dumbest of them all.

Now there's a sentiment I think most should be able to agree on. Promise I could measure to the nearest foot and it would most likely have a nominal impact on the OMV.

 

[Dale Floyd]

There was something that popped up recently in an assignment, that involved ANSI, GLA, and restrictions.

An appraiser correctly measured a property using ANSI standards, with the 2nd level being calculated based on 5' and above space as there was a significant amount of lower wall to wall space that was 4' and under. (Beneath the ceilings on the sides of the upper floor.)

The calculated amount of square footage came out at a certain amount which was notably less than the minimums which the restrictions allowed.

Naturally, the restrictions didn't specify ANSI measurement standards, and only required a certain amount of heated square feet. Heated square feet aren't the same as ANSI GLA, as all of you know.

Because the appraiser didn't report the total square footage (heated) and only the GLA defined by ANSI, there's all kinds of issues. Our firm has been consulted by attorneys, of course, and we noticed the issue fairly quickly.

Might have been better for the original appraiser to include the total wall to wall measurements, and discount that amount of footage which does not qualify as ANSI GLA within the report rather than just showing the 5' and up. It may be compliant, but a good appraiser should have been more diligent in the report to better reveal the whole story. (That's my opinion, of course.)

 

[Fernando]

There was something that popped up recently in an assignment, that involved ANSI, GLA, and restrictions.

An appraiser correctly measured a property using ANSI standards, with the 2nd level being calculated based on 5' and above space as there was a significant amount of lower wall to wall space that was 4' and under. (Beneath the ceilings on the sides of the upper floor.)

The calculated amount of square footage came out at a certain amount which was notably less than the minimums which the restrictions allowed.

Naturally, the restrictions didn't specify ANSI measurement standards, and only required a certain amount of heated square feet. Heated square feet aren't the same as ANSI GLA, as all of you know.

Because the appraiser didn't report the total square footage (heated) and only the GLA defined by ANSI, there's all kinds of issues. Our firm has been consulted by attorneys, of course, and we noticed the issue fairly quickly.

What did the attorneys say?

Might have been better for the original appraiser to include the total wall to wall measurements, and discount that amount of footage which does not qualify as ANSI GLA within the report rather than just showing the 5' and up. It may be compliant, but a good appraiser should have been more diligent in the report to better reveal the whole story. (That's my opinion, of course.)

That's the problem with Fannie's ANSI standard. Appraisers now spend too much unnecessary time in determining "correct" gross area instead of moving on with important part of appraising.

 

[JTip]

We must have superior builders around here. All my houses measure in increments of a foot.

 

[Fernando]

We must have superior builders around here. All my houses measure in increments of a foot.

That's amazing. Your lenders will know your lying and lazy in your measurements.

 

[Dale Floyd]

Since we've gotten involved, the arguments from one side insist the home did not meet the minimum restriction requirements because of ANSI standards and therefore the seller/developer is liable for damages to the buyer.

The other says ANSI doesn't apply because there are more square feet than ANSI reveals.

The hanger, seems to be the argument that if typical lending/appraisal standards are using square footage calculations for this house which will total a smaller footprint than the restrictions allow, then what good were those restrictions in the first place? In other words, if you bought a home with restrictions of 1,500 square feet, aren't you assuming your home will reveal 1,500 square feet of living space? That's my take on their positions.

I suppose they'll spend tons of money arguing what the implied square footage shown in the restrictions were actually meant to convey. Is it GLA or not? Is it wall to wall or not? Was he implying that areas which are as low as 2.0', should be considered in that total shown in the restrictions?

We'll see what happens.

 

[Fernando]

Since we've gotten involved, the arguments from one side insist the home did not meet the minimum restriction requirements because of ANSI standards and therefore the seller/developer is liable for damages to the buyer.

The other says ANSI doesn't apply because there are more square feet than ANSI reveals.

The hanger, seems to be the argument that if typical lending/appraisal standards are using square footage calculations for this house which will total a smaller footprint than the restrictions allow, then what good were those restrictions in the first place? In other words, if you bought a home with restrictions of 1,500 square feet, aren't you assuming your home will reveal 1,500 square feet of living space? That's my take on their positions.

I suppose they'll spend tons of money arguing what the implied square footage shown in the restrictions were actually meant to convey. Is it GLA or not? Is it wall to wall or not? Was he implying that areas which are as low as 2.0', should be considered in that total shown in the restrictions?

We'll see what happens.

It's a scenario I haven't considered. Fannie made things complicated with ANSI and repercussions it created.

 

[The Bob]

There was something that popped up recently in an assignment, that involved ANSI, GLA, and restrictions.

An appraiser correctly measured a property using ANSI standards, with the 2nd level being calculated based on 5' and above space as there was a significant amount of lower wall to wall space that was 4' and under. (Beneath the ceilings on the sides of the upper floor.)

The calculated amount of square footage came out at a certain amount which was notably less than the minimums which the restrictions allowed.

Naturally, the restrictions didn't specify ANSI measurement standards, and only required a certain amount of heated square feet. Heated square feet aren't the same as ANSI GLA, as all of you know.

Because the appraiser didn't report the total square footage (heated) and only the GLA defined by ANSI, there's all kinds of issues. Our firm has been consulted by attorneys, of course, and we noticed the issue fairly quickly.

Might have been better for the original appraiser to include the total wall to wall measurements, and discount that amount of footage which does not qualify as ANSI GLA within the report rather than just showing the 5' and up. It may be compliant, but a good appraiser should have been more diligent in the report to better reveal the whole story. (That's my opinion, of course.)

A couple of things come to mind
1. what was the purpose of the appraisal? Are they using a GSE appraisal to confirm adherence to the restrictions?
2. Assuming it's a GSE appraisal and the appraiser listed the non-ANSI area on a separate line, then he handled it correctly. You wouldn't report all of the finished area, ANSI and non-ANSI together, and then discount the non-ANSI area.

 

[Dale Floyd]

A couple of things come to mind
1. what was the purpose of the appraisal? Are they using a GSE appraisal to confirm adherence to the restrictions?
2. Assuming it's a GSE appraisal and the appraiser listed the non-ANSI area on a separate line, then he handled it correctly. You wouldn't report all of the finished area, ANSI and non-ANSI together, and then discount the non-ANSI area.

The buyers purchased this property from the developer/builder who put these restrictions in the deeds initially and built the home. Now the owner is wanting to resell, and the buyers are getting a mortgage, and the current appraiser is using ANSI standards. House isn't as large as the restrictions state are the minimum.

Appraiser has not listed anything other than the ANSI square footage. That's what I was saying. They have an ANSI GLA versus the square footage restrictions issue now, and their buyers can't get that cleared for their mortgage.

I'm not suggesting anybody is wrong, because the square footage has no standard in the restrictions, and the appraiser is rightly using ANSI as the standard in the appraisal. But the resulting calculations are in conflict with the restrictions, based on their lender and the attorney.

It's interesting, isn't it?

 

[Dublin ohio]

The buyers purchased this property from the developer/builder who put these restrictions in the deeds initially and built the home. Now the owner is wanting to resell, and the buyers are getting a mortgage, and the current appraiser is using ANSI standards. House isn't as large as the restrictions state are the minimum.

Appraiser has not listed anything other than the ANSI square footage. That's what I was saying. They have an ANSI GLA versus the square footage restrictions issue now, and their buyers can't get that cleared for their mortgage.

I'm not suggesting anybody is wrong, because the square footage has no standard in the restrictions, and the appraiser is rightly using ANSI as the standard in the appraisal. But the resulting calculations are in conflict with the restrictions, based on their lender and the attorney.

It's interesting, isn't it?

I gather from your description that the appraiser counted part of the upper level as GLA. If that is the situation. According to the typical interpretation of ANSI (which I personally do not agree with). None of the upper level qualifies as living area per ANSI and all of it should have been addressed as a separate line item