Appraisal Review Checklist

[Tejus]

I'm putting together an Appraisal Review Checklist. The list will assist a reviewer by identifying items to check and assist the preparer by identifying items which may be checked by a review appraiser, underwriter/lo or sw appraisal package qc. Much of this information is common sense, but I find it helpful to have a list to ensure nothing is skipped and makes training much easier.

If I receive good suggestions then I'll post the results for download by anybody who wants it.

The list will also allow "scoring" a report on the list criteria. I'd like to see the state appraisal boards use something like this. Sounds bad initially, but the up side is if you can obtain the list then you know what the appraisal board is looking for and can ensure you address those issues. No more reaching in the dark trying to identify what the appraisal board looks for.

If this type of list is already publicly available, then please identify where it can be obtained. I'm sure uw/lo/appraisers/state boards already have something like this in their head or written down.

This is primarily for 1004 and 2055 appraisals.

I've listed a few ideas to start with, please add to the list:

- USPAP compliance, very vague, need to be more specific such as is there a 3 yr sales history.

- Does the report contain a TOC identifying the contents.

- Is everything referenced in the TOC included in the appraisal report.

- Consistency between forms, covers everything.

- Are the forms filled out completely.

- Does each line in the comp sales grid contain a subject property attribute rating (fair-good-excel-...) and a comparable rating (sup-equal-inf) for the comp. Not all appraisers follow this convention so it is a judgment call.

- Does the Age (eff/act) on the front of the form match the sales comp grid age.

- Does the number of rooms on the front of the form match the sales comp grid room numbers.

- Does the sq ft on the front of the form match the sales comp grid, Cost Approach and sketch.

- Do the Sales History numbers match the sales comp grid entries.

- Do the pictures of the subject and comp's match the referenced property.

- Do any of the sales comp grid entries exceed the 10/15/25 guidelines. If yes, is there an explanation in the comments.

- Do all the sales comp grid adjustments match the comp rating, e.g. superior/negative and inferior/positive adjustment.

- Are the subject's sales comp grid description entries consistent with the first page.

- Are the comp's sales comp grid description entries consistent with any included comp info such as MLS listing.

- Are all significant comp attributes listed in the data source (MLS, etc) addressed in the sales comp grid.

- Are the sales comp grid %'s and totals correct.

- Are the forms signed.

- Are the comp's reasonable, very subjective, need more detail.

- Are the adjustments reasonable, very subjective, need more detail.

- If the Subject is in a flood zone, is a flood map included in the report.

- Are data sources and/or data inaccuracies identified.


muchas gracias por la ayuda.

 

[liznindy]

If you have access to appraisal software, you may want to check out the differing review report forms available.

 

[Tawfik Ahdab]

As Liznindy states, consider existing forms as a template

Consider:

The Field Review Form 1032/Fannie Mae form 2000 or the Short Review form 2006

These are part of most residential appraisal software bundles.

Regards,

Tawfik Ahdab

 

[Craig in Oregon]

Alan,

How about this:

Are appraiser's comments accurate and pertinent to the subject at hand or merely non-specific general boilerplate blather used in all and any of appraiser's reports to fill space fast and shorten the turn around time?

See where this peer reviewer is coming from?

 

[Mike Garrett RAA]

I like my software built in reviewer, it checks hundreds of items on the 1004 or 2055 for consistency. Sorry, but I think you are trying to re-invent the wheel! :rofl:

 

[Doug Smith SRA]

APPRAISAL REVIEW

Subject Property:

Appraiser:

Effective Date of Appraisal:

Interest Appraised: Fee Simple Interest

Client:

Intended Purpose: The intended purpose of this appraisal review is to assess the adequacy, and relevance of data and the propriety of any adjustments to that data. To assess the appropriateness of the appraisal methods and techniques used to develop the appraisal report. The review appraiser has not arrived at an estimate of value for the subject property.

Intended Use: The intended use of this appraisal review is to assess the appraisal report for compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and accepted appraisal technique and methodology for _______________, ___________, for his/her use in possible litigation involving the subject property. It is understood that this may involve testimony in court regarding this review. No other use is intended or authorized.

Date of Review:

Scope: This appraisal review is for compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice along with accepted appraisal technique and methodology. The reviewer personally viewed the subject property on __________, however the comparable sales were not personally visited on the date of review. The reviewer relied on the information presented in the report along with current county records. Estimate of value has/has not been arrived at for the purpose of this report, as per client instructions.



Review Appraiser’s Summary of Conclusions:

USPAP Appears to be in
General Requirement Requirement Compliance _____

1. If Limited Appraisal, has Appraiser Departure Rule & Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
correctly invoked & reported departure? 2-2 (xi)


2. If Jurisdictional Exceptions has been Jurisdictional Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
exercised in the development of the Exception
appraisal, has the appraiser correctly
invoked and reported?


3. Has appraiser prominently stated the 2-2 Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
report option used?


4. Has appraiser identified and correctly 1-1 (a) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
interpreted the appraisal problem?


5. Has appraiser considered and identified 2-2 (iii) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
the purpose of the appraisal?


6. Has appraiser considered and identified 2-2 (iii) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
the intended use of the appraisal? SMT-9


7. Has appraiser considered and identified 1-2 (a) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
the real property interest to be appraised? 2-2 (ii)


8. Has appraiser identified the effective date 1-2 (a) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
of the appraisal? 2-2 (v)


9. Has the appraiser identified the date of the 2-2 (v) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
report?


10. Has appraiser provided a definition of 1-2 (B) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
value? 2-2 (iv)

11. If market value has been estimated, has 1-2 (B) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
the appraiser indicated whether the estimate 2-2 (iv)
is in terms of cash; or terms equivalent to
cash, or other precisely defined terms?

12. Has the report developed and reported an 1-2 (B) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
opinion of reasonable exposure time linked SMT-6
to the value opinion?


13. Has appraiser considered and reported the 1-4 (B) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
extent of the process of collecting, 2-2 (vi)
confirming and reporting data (Scope)?


14. Has appraiser considered and stated all 1-2 (ab) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
assumptions and limiting conditions that 2-2 (vii)
affect the analysis and conclusions of the
appraisals?


Property Description

15. Has appraiser considered and stated all 1-2 (a) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
special or extraordinary assumptions and 2-1 ©
limiting conditions?


16. Has appraiser adequately identified and 1-2 (a) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
reported the site description? 2-1 (i)


17. Has appraiser adequately identified and 1-2 (a) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
reported improvement(s) description(s)? 2-2 (i)


18. Has appraiser adequately identified and 1-4 (g) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
reported the physical, functional and 2-2 (viii)
external market factors as they may affect
the appraisal?


19. Has appraiser considered and reported any 1-4 (g) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
anticipated public and private improvements 2-2 (viii)
located on or off the site?
20. Has appraiser considered and reported 1-2 © Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
easements, restriction or other items of a 2-2 (viii)
similar nature?


21. Has appraiser identified and considered the 1-2 (e) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
effect on value of any personal property, 2-2 (viii)
trade fixtures or intangible item that are not
real property but is included in the appraisal?


22. Has appraiser considered and reported the 1-3 (B) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
highest and best use of the site? 2-2 (ix)


23. Has appraiser considered and reported the 1-3 (a) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
highest and best use as improved? 2-2 (ix)


24. Has the appraiser identified and analyzed 1-3 (a) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
economic demand and market area trends? 2-2 (viii)


VALUATION

Cost Approach

25. Has appraiser explained and supported the 2-2 (xi) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
exclusion of the cost approach?


26. Has appraiser appropriately valued the site? 1-4 (a) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
2-2 (viii)


27. Has appraiser collected, verified, analyzed 1-4 (B) (i) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
and reconciled the cost of new improvements? 2-2 (viii)
2-2 (xi)


28. Has appraiser collected, verified, analyzed 1-4 (B) (iii) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
and reconciled accrued depreciation? 2-2 (viii)




Sales Comparison Approach

29. Has appraiser explained and supported the 1-4 (B) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
exclusion of the Sales Comparison Approach? 2-2 (viii)
2-2 (xi)


30. Has appraiser collected, verified, analyzed 1-4 (B) (iii) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
and reconciled comparable sales, adequately 2-2 (viii)
identified and described? 2-2 (xi)


Income Approach

31. Has appraiser explained and supported the 2-2 (xi) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
exclusion of the Income Approach?


32. Has appraiser collected, verified, analyzed 1-4 (B) (iv) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
and reconciled comparable rental data for 2-2 (viii)
subject rent?


33. Has appraiser collected, verified, analyzed 1-4 (B) (v) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
and reconciled comparable operating 2-2 (viii)
expenses?


34. Has appraiser collected, verified, analyzed 1-4 (B) (vi) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
and reconciled comparable data to estimate 2-2 (viii)
cap/disc rate?


Reconciliation and Final Estimate of Value

35. Has appraiser considered, analyzed and 1-5 (a) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
reported any current sale, option, or listing 2-2 (viii)
of the property being approached?


36. Has appraiser considered, analyzed and 1-5 (B) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
reported any prior sales; 1 year 1-4 family, 2-2 (viii)
3 years all others?



37. Has appraiser summarized the appraisal 2-2 (viii) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
procedures followed, and the reasoning
that supports the analyses, opinions and
conclusions.


38. Does the appraisal report contain sufficient 2-1 (B) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
information to enable the person(s) who are
expected to receive or rely on the report to
understand it properly?


Certification

39. Does the report include a signed certification 2-3 Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
in accordance with Standards Rule 2-3?


Montana Code Annotated

40. Did the report identify in writing the class MCA 37-54-301(4) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
of certification the appraiser holds?


41. Did the appraiser designate the class for which MCA 37-54-305(4) Yes ___ No ___ N/A ___
the appraiser is certified and place the certificate
number on each appraisal report, contract, or
other instrument that the appraiser uses in
conducting real estate appraisal activities?


Certification for Appraisal Review

I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

· The facts and data reported by the reviewer and used in the review process are true and correct.
· The analyses, opinions, and conclusions in this review report are limited only by the assumptions and limiting conditions stated in this review report, and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions.
· I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved.
· I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment.
· My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results.
· My compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from the analyses, opinions, or conclusions in, or the use of, this review.
· My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this review report was prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.
· I have personally viewed the subject property of the report under review. (If more than one person signs the report, this certification must clearly specify which individuals did and which individuals did not make personal inspection of the appraised property.)
· No one provided significant professional assistance to the person signing this report. (If there are exceptions, the name of each individual providing significant professions assistance must be stated.)

Limiting Condition:

· If any of the factual data stated in the report is found to be false, the reviewer reserves the right to amend this review.

This appraisal review is to be used in conjunction with the Appraisal Report and file memorandum under review, without the accompanying report this review report is not to be relied upon.





_____________________________________ ___________________________________

 

[sam strahan]

alamode has a good one! the residential review 2002. i use it before i let my sponsor see my work! glad to be here! sam

 

[Pamela Crowley (Florida)]

How can a reviewer answer 'Yes" to many of those questions if they don't know that particular subject market?

How could a reviewer not from that subject market possibly know that the appraiser used comps from a gated golf course project to inflate the value of the subject that is outside of it?

Lots of other questions here where an appraisal can 'appear' correct when it's actually blatant fraud to anybody else local.

 

[Tejus]

Thanks for the good suggestions. I've summarized them below:

- Fannie Mae Form 2000, 1 Unit Res Appraisal Field Review Report,
available at www.adfinet.com.

- Review Form 2002, in many appraisal sw packages

- Short Review Form 2006, in many appraisal sw packages

- Doug Smith's USPAP review, available on this thread


A couple other good suggestions were made:

- Craig's blather radar

- Pam's market expertise

- Appraisal sw packages qc. Each sw package has this but it is only usable on appraisals in that format. The appraisals I review are on paper. The appraisal sw qc is not usable in this situation. Excel has a couple nice advantages in this area. You can easily add formulas and conditional formatting to add qc to your forms. You can also easily view the qc defined for each cell on your form, you can then apply this same type of qc to the paper appraisal you are reviewing. A concern I have with appraisal sw packages is the "hundreds" of qc functions implemented, and the user doesn't know what they are. Many appraisers I've talked to consider their appraisal sw package useful, e.g. type a number in one field, another number appears in a different field. But the appraiser cannot explain how the 2nd number was calculated. The appraisal sw packages are useful gizmos, but the user needs to understand what is going on.

Thanks again for the suggestions.

Bueno suerta.