Appraisal of Detached Townhouse

[Joyce Potts]

Actually, years ago I was hired by the City of Orlando to appraise multiple townhomes in the downtown area. The city was purchasing them and believe it or not, tearing them down, to make way for BETTER, NEWER affordable housing. They were actually demolishing the units leaving the remaining detached properties looking much like your photo, until they could also be acquired and razed.

I would guess that if it's NOT attached, it's no longer 'technically' a townhome. Good luck with those comps!

 

[Matthew Schwartz]

I detect some sloppy descriptions here, some major confusion here. In California, townhomes are CONDOMINIUMS, and you are referring to them like CONDOMINIUMS because you are talking about end units - but they could be detached SFR's that are CONDOMINIUM-LIKE PUDS! Do you know WHICH? They are either detached SFR's in a PUD, or they are detached CONDOMINIUMS in a complex so tiny there is no HOA, and I have run into this in CA. Hope you know the type of ownership here.

 

[residentialguy]

In California, townhomes are CONDOMINIUMS,

Not here in MN. Condos are different then townhomes, but they can look identical. Townhomes are usually lot & block and condos are CIC. Many times you have to call the city to verify, as sometimes they have both. Condos are done on Form 465 and townhomes are Form 1004, typically.

 

[Ken B]

Okay, I got tired of all these CA appraisers trying to tell the rest of the world that a "Condominium" was something different than simply a form of ownership in CA. So here is the definition of "condominium" from the CA Planning Code. And what do you know? In CA, a condominium is a form of ownership, not a building design, just as in the rest of the U.S.

Source: http://ceres.ca.gov/planning/pzd/2000/pzd2000_web/pzd2000_misc1.html#anchor1085287


[SIZE=+2]Common Interest Subdivisions[/SIZE]

Condominiums, Stock Cooperatives, Etc.

(Excerpts from the California Civil Code)

783. Condominium
A condominium is an estate in real property described in subdivision (f) of Section 1351. A condominium may, with respect to the duration of its enjoyment, be either (1) an estate of inheritance or perpetual estate, (2) an estate for life, (3) an estate for years, such as a leasehold or a subleasehold, or (4) any combination of the foregoing.
(Repealed and Added by Stats. 1985, Ch. 874.)


1351. Definitions
As used in this title, the following terms have the following meanings:
(f) A "condominium project" means a development consisting of condominiums (DUH). A condominium consists of an undivided interest in common in a portion of real property coupled with a separate interest in space called a unit, the boundaries of which are described on a recorded final map, parcel map, or condominium plan in sufficient detail to locate all boundaries thereof. The area within these boundaries may be filled with air, earth, or water, or any combination thereof, and need not be physically attached to land except by easements for access and, if necessary, support. The description of the unit may refer to (1) boundaries described in the recorded final map, parcel map, or condominium plan, (2) physical boundaries, either in existence, or to be constructed, such as walls, floors, and ceilings of a structure or any portion thereof, (3) an entire structure containing one or more units, or (4) any combination thereof. The portion or portions of the real property held in undivided interest may be all of the real property, except for the separate interests, or may include a particular three-dimensional portion thereof, the boundaries of which are described on a recorded final map, parcel map, or condominium plan. The area within these boundaries may be filled with air, earth, or water, or any combination thereof, and need not be physically attached to land except by easements for access and, if necessary, support. An individual condominium within a condominium project may include, in addition, a separate interest in other portions of the real property.

 

[CANative]

There are plenty of townhomes in CA that are not condominiums. Townhome is just a description for a certain type of building.

 

[Ken B]

There are plenty of townhomes in CA that are not condominiums. Townhome is just a description for a certain type of building.

Thank you. My faith in CA appraisers has been somewhat restored.

 

[Michigan CG]

*&^%$#.............what Greg said. The guy is appraising an ugly two-story home with no good comps because the other two-story homes are attached to other ugly two-story homes.

The other two-story homes have condo ownership.

Can anyone answer the question in post one by inserting ugly two-story home in place of Townhouse?

 

[Webbed Feet]

Brother Schwartz,

This could end up like a "pile" in a football game. Welcome to the world of influence outside of the pocket area you've been in. I'd hurry up and edit that before anyone quotes it if I were you. ...

In my area also, when one says "Townhome," or "Townhouse," one might as well be saying "Cape COD." All it means is the impression of the building style. It has nothing to do with things such as bundle of rights, form of ownership, or type of estate involved. People here in my location simply see attached units, and they call them townhouses or row houses. We have local real estate agents/brokers that make the big mistake of not knowing that they come in both flavors of condominium form of ownership and not condominium form of ownership. And many of them not condominium, are not PUD either. They are simply attached SFR and known as row houses.

P.S. Oh, and for those that bring up painting the front of one orange and plaid. That's why something called CC&R's as deed restrictions were invented..

 

[TJSum]

The picture I posted is three of a kind, there are three of these odd balls. They are located at the border of two subdivisions. To the south are much older detached homes, ramblers and split foyers built in the 1960s. To the north are actual townhomes (attached and semi-detached) of the same age as the odd balls.

If your situation is similar to this, I would use the townhomes as comps, no question. Your lot size is very similar to townhomes, so not really an adjustment there generally speaking. Your market may say different. The value difference between attached and end units most likely is the same for your detached compared with an end unit, once again generally speaking. If your lot were much bigger, then one could argue to use comps from both choices.

*&^%$#.............what Greg said. The guy is appraising an ugly two-story home with no good comps because the other two-story homes are attached to other ugly two-story homes.

The other two-story homes have condo ownership.

Can anyone answer the question in post one by inserting ugly two-story home in place of Townhouse?

TE, I answered the OP question in my prior post #9. I also posted a picture to show what these ugly homes look like. However, the attached ugly townhomes are located in a PUD, not a condo, that is a major difference. Call it what you please, but I agree they are butt ugly and offer different appeal to your average detached home. Generally speaking, most HOA fees are minimal (as compared to condo fees), the HOA fee could be so small that is does not affect marketability. It all depends on what the HOA fees are, and what amenties come with the fee, to determine if an adjustment should be made or not.

When I ran into this problem several years back, the detached homes were built in the 60's and were ramblers and split foyers. There were also a pack of townhomes closeby the same age as the butt ugly subject, built in the 90s, with the same design and utility. Their HOA was $30 per month. The comp choice seemed clear to me.

 

[Webbed Feet]

*&^%$#.............what Greg said. The guy is appraising an ugly two-story home with no good comps because the other two-story homes are attached to other ugly two-story homes.

The other two-story homes have condo ownership.

Can anyone answer the question in post one by inserting ugly two-story home in place of Townhouse?

I've been waiting for anybody to bring this up. Brother Evans and I could be wrong, but the subject sounds to be nothing more than a butt ugly detached SFR two story house. One that sticks out like a sore thumb, and hence probably could have marketability issues... or not.

But I suspect what I would not be doing! I tend to think I would not be jumping over into what might be either a condo project, or a PUD project with common interests and HOA, just because the building style appears to be similar with tall skinny two story construction. Why? .. Because the likelyhood of the SOW being conjoined to Fannie is why, just for one good reason.

pay special attention to the amount and purpose of the owners’ association assessment since marketability and value of the individual units in a project depend on marketability and appeal of the project

Using sales out of a project where the marketability and appeal of the individual units is tied to the project, and comparing those to a detached SFR two story house with none of those kind of influences on the bundle of rights? With a claim this can be worked out only by an adjustment for the HOA fee? Or using the end units? Sure! Right! .... Do that, along with your five legal pages proving how you extracted out the contributory value of the common interests or extracted out that adjustment for the coming HOA lien on all the project owners for last year's lawsuit the HOA lost. The coming lien that just influenced all the project unit market values (sale prices). Etc. Etc. AND Etc. Or how about a project that has been selling at a premium due to the common amenities with a superbly ran HOA, or safety and security aspects not available to that SFR house for the cost? But because you used these as a comp against a detached SFR house with none of these influences, and failed to research your report that deeply, you just mucked it up because it just was not the same market buyer.

Perhaps all my thoughts are just deemed silly by many here. But if anything I've brought up comes to pass and any appraiser involved fails to catch this stuff and prove how it was accounted for, I can think of more than just myself on this forum that in a review would get out the frying pan and oil over it.

P.S. Brother TJSum... Our posts crossed paths at the same time. I note yours and just wanted to say that both of us are saying "It depends." I suspect we will agree that any appraiser jumping into a condo or PUD project to get comps for a detached SFR with none of the condo or PUD influences had darn well better be ready to defend the choice of having done that.