Any thoughts?

[James Micozzi]

how is this for a wierd one? colonial in Merrick, south of Merrick Road. owner has built a connecting bridge between two houses. he owns both, both have separate deeds. Order is for only one of the houses, which of course he has converted to an illegal two, one unit on the first floor and another on the second floor, with this bridge connecting the second floor unit to the other house.

of course, the owner says to disregard the bridge, that it is a separate address. for a mortgage refinance, only on the one house with two units. What say my more seasoned peers?

 

[The Warrior Monk]

The simple answer is...call the client.

I would image that most lenders in this case would require that the bridge between the the two homes be removed. There are obvious liability issues that the lender is likely going to want to take on. For example, if one home catches fire, the other has a strong probably of being damaged and/or destroyed. Also, obtaining title insurance is likely to be a problem.

 

[Roger Hudson]

Let me know.

Wow! That is a wierd one. I'd like to hear how you address it. Sounds like a combination of functional obsolescence and cost to cure.

RH

 

[Mike Kennedy]

Subject to removal of the (most likely Illegal) Encroachment.

Had one similar.......... aging dad builds two mirror image capes on two adjacent, hillside, separate lots, dad passes on.

Older sister in east house develops major medical problems - unable to walk. Younger sister in west house buys her an electric wheelchair, erects $20,000. 3 level decking with declining walks to allow Big Sis access down to the road.

Big Sis passes on. Younger Sis attempts to sell Sisters house AND Refi hers. Yours truly did 3 appraisals (first for attorney for the estate, second for pre-sale list on Big Sis, following week Refi for Local Bank on Baby Sis).

The Town Building and Zoning Department AND both Lenders required removal of the illegally erected encroachment, as did HBU.

It is what is - in that case (and most likely yours) .....an ILLEGAL USE for which variance application will typically be denied; possible cure - merge two lots if meet area set back etc requirements.

In my cases, neither would have been approved.

 

[James Micozzi]

The simple answer is...call the client.

I would image that most lenders in this case would require that the bridge between the the two homes be removed. There are obvious liability issues that the lender is likely going to want to take on. For example, if one home catches fire, the other has a strong probably of being damaged and/or destroyed. Also, obtaining title insurance is likely to be a problem.

Call went to the client from the field. They have no idea how they want to proceed so far. Running it up the ladder, so to speak. I agree with Mike and Dave that subject to the removal is the only way to do this one. I will let you know how it turns out.

 

[Kevin Mc]

Wow. My guess is the county knows nada about the bridge as well.

 

[James Micozzi]

Wow. My guess is the county knows nada about the bridge as well.

Kevin

you got that right. County has no idea, town of hempstead shows no permits, etc.

 

[LACKLAND27]

Any appraisal you write up is going to have to be subject to removal of the bridge and the illegal unit. I hope it was a COD because I bet 5-1 this is going to end up being an inspection fee. Talk about a bridge over troubled water.

 

[Daystar]

This is not going to fly for a host of reasons, #1 Title company is not going to insure. #2 Illegal use. #3 Illegal improvements(bridge) #4 Major fire hazard to adjacent home.

 

[Greg Bell]

Illegal single unit conversion from one to two units..