appraisals and non-permitted additions

[Rodan]

About 4 years ago I decided to extend my 2 car garage (length wise) and create a small guest house behind it.

I would have loved to do this by the books, with proper permits , etc.
but the town I live in charges excessive amounts of money for things such as gas meters. An additional gas meter installed at the street was quoted at 15K.

Had I decided to go this route, the project would have never been started. (I built the whole thing (18' x 22') for around 45K.

My home is registerd as a 2 bedroom 1 bath house.
When it was built in 1941, that's what it was.
In 1960 or so a second bedroom was attached, so it is actually a 3 bedroom 1 bath house.

I have had the house for 15 years and have had it appraised 3 times prior to refinancing. There have never been any issues arising from this discrepancy.

Should I decide to refinance again what might I expect from an appraisal which would now include this guest house addition?
Would I be opening up a major can of worms, or would this addition simply be included in the apprasial and just treated as such?

Would I be putting myself on the local building inspectors radar or ?
Any thoughts on this subject would be greatly appreciated.

Ventura County, CA.

 

[Gary Schinagel]

About 4 years ago I decided to extend my 2 car garage (length wise) and create a small guest house behind it.

I would have loved to do this by the books, with proper permits , etc.
but the town I live in charges excessive amounts of money for things such as gas meters. An additional gas meter installed at the street was quoted at 15K.

Had I decided to go this route, the project would have never been started. (I built the whole thing (18' x 22') for around 45K.

My home is registerd as a 2 bedroom 1 bath house.
When it was built in 1941, that's what it was.
In 1960 or so a second bedroom was attached, so it is actually a 3 bedroom 1 bath house. had the house for 15 years and have had it appraised 3 times prior to refinancing. There have never been any issues arising from this discrepancy.

Should I decide to refinance again what might I expect from an appraisal which would now include this guest house addition?
Would I be opening up a major can of worms, or would this addition simply be included in the apprasial and just treated as such?

Would I be putting myself on the local building inspectors radar or ?
Any thoughts on this subject would be greatly appreciated.




Ventura County, CA.

Whats alarming is the guest house issue described which is typically hardest to overcome can the guest area be considered finished shop/study/bedroom/bath or does it also include a KITCHEN(would it be percieved in any way as a rental)? Metered seperately,You ALSO mentioned a seperate UNPERMITTED GAS meter(does that possibility even exist)?

Call the tax office and verify your tax base as still a two OR THREE bedroom they will typically have your land and improvements calculated seperately before added together as one bill. Whats the improvements taxed at? What size do they have for your living area and such? What lot size?(your just verifying your bill) If your not being taxed on it then it might not ever be considered grandfathered. Next check your neighborhood. Are there other similar improved properties setbacks etc(better if you know they have sold)? You may have a case for a varience and or a grandfathered zoning. Now get a written description of your zoning code ordinances as they apply today (just to SEE if there is room to add on more). The zoning inspector will tell you basically the appoximate years when grandfathering and such were allowed if you kind of tell him the general description in your neighborhood AS COMPARED TO WHAT YOU CAN AND CANNOT DO. Then seek a professional builder,draftsman etc working with the city daily to get it stamped and taxed as improved with new sketch and survey included(good news is they are always looking to increase their tax base). There may be some fines.These things will all come up in any future sale so you need to work them out now. Dont just expect it to go away. A good appraiser will catch the difference because we ask the assessor every day what value they have given the land and improvements and we also ask the tax amount. Might also want to consider even asking the zoning officer for a list of reputable contractors in your area.
Bottom line the can was opened when you knowingly avoided the fees and yearly taxes going in. Good Luck!

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

The CA County Assessor has no bearing on an appraisal because the duty of that entity is to maximize tax revenue regardless of the quality of the improvements that are being taxed.

The city fees for building permits are imposed to help ensure that improvements would not unnecessarily jepordize the health & safety of future occupants...and of coruse to generate revenue.

The additional meter is problematic because it might have been the basis of the status of the addition as a second unit, i.e., duplex, rather than an accessory unit. It's possible that if the jurisdictionary authority did, indeed, require a 2nd meter, the zoning of your parcel might preclude an accessory dwelling unit in lieu of a second, duplex unit--although a state mandate, subject to lots of different interpretations on this Forum--more or less requires the JA to allow the ADU unless they can prove its deletory influence. ("No occupant left behind" think.)

HUD imposes a definition of ADU that might or might-not be applicable to non-FHA loans depending upon the appraiser you select. Otherwise, there is much much less than universal agreement concerning the correct posture/stance.

Ditto the treatment of the status of the addition in the absence of permits. Most here, with a few notable exceptions, will argue/agree that although the addition is not permitted, the parcel can be defined as "legal non-conforming" rather than "illegal" as regards zoning compliance and the commensurate "legally permissible" aspect of the HBU analysis. All will agree that the addition must not incorporated into GLA--in fact, that might the only thing that appraisers agree upon--because it is detached from the original, primary living area, despite that access might be available via an attached garage.

Some will base their opinion of value upon the "market reaction" to the area, which almost inevitably will result in an enhanced value. Others will refuse to do so because of the potential liability involved in determinining market reaction to a non-permitted area, with the liability enhanced exponentially because of the appraiser's duty to the public trust, in addition to his or her client obligations--concerning the potential exposure if an occupant is injured in a non-permitted addition, which might be occupied becuase a mortgage loan was extended, which was extended because the lender delegated the decision to the appraiser; ergo the reluctance of numerous practitioners to avoid the "can of worms" that Gary mentioned that won't go away until you remedy the issue.

(Rodney King Caveat: Just my personal opinions but I tried to present both sides of several controversial issues...)

 

[Mztk1]

I think the answer to your question is going to be very specific to your location and you need to either find a the zoning code and read it, or hire your own professional to research it for you. There are just so many issues that may or may not apply subject to your local muncipality's code.

 

[Webbed Feet]

Rodan,

Have you begun to consider the repercussions involving that you may have completely invalidated your hazard insurance? If you have a fire you may be finding out just how horribly expensive all those savings were from you not following the local codes and permit process like you were supposed to.

Webbed.

 

[Bernie I. Garcia]

Market Value is defined as the value at its Highest & Best Use which is defined as that "legal use". etc. Consequently, an unpermitted addition should be given no value & should be considered in terms of the "cost of removal", possibly off set by its interim use & possible ability to generate an income.

Respectfully submitted,

B. Garcia

 

[Mike Kennedy]

SEE current Building & Zoning ordinance PDF attached........specifically......

Sec. 103 VIOLATIONS.
103.1 GENERAL. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish, equip, use, occupy, or maintain any building or structure, building service equipment, machine or equipment or cause or permit the same to be done in violation of this Code or to violate any provision of this Code.

103.3 INFRACTIONS. It shall be an infraction of law for any person to remove, deface, or alter a posted notice of the Building Official or duly appointed representative when such notice constitutes a stop work order or a warning of substandard or hazardous conditions or prohibits or restricts the occupancy or use of a building, structure, or building service equipment regulated by this code.
103.4 MISDEMEANORS. Any person, firm, or corporation violating any of the provisions of this Code shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, misdemeanor/infraction, or infraction, and each such person shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this Code is committed, continued, or permitted. Each and every violation of any provision of this Code is a misdemeanor unless designated by this Code to be an infraction or a misdemeanor/infraction.
103.5 MISDEMEANORS/INFRACTIONS. Every violation of this Code designated a misdemeanor/infraction shall be a misdemeanor; provided that, where the District Attorney has determined that such action would be in the best interests of justice, the District Attorney may specify in the accusatory pleading that the violation shall be an infraction and the violation shall then be prosecuted as an infraction.
103.6 PUNISHMENTS. Any person convicted of a misdemeanor, the penalty for which is not otherwise prescribed, shall be punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment for not more than six (6) months or both such fine and imprisonment. Any person convicted of an infraction, the penalty for which is not otherwise prescribed, shall be punished by (a) a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100) for the first violation; (b) a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200) for a second violation of the same ordinance provision within one year; and (c) a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500) for each additional violation of the same ordinance provision within one year.
B&S

 

[Mike Kennedy]

PDF TOO LARGE TO ATTACH HERE......... see link >>>


VENTURA COUNTY (PDF)

... BUILDING AND SAFETY. Ventura. 800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009 ... County Zoning ... accordance with the Ventura County Building and Safety Fee ...
www.ventura.org/rma/build_safe/pdf/B_SBuilding_Code_2001_Ed.pdf - 1325k

 

[Mike Kennedy]

http://www.bpcnet.com/codes/ventura/



8101-3 General prohibitions.
8101-3.1 No structure shall be moved onto a site, erected, reconstructed, added to, enlarged, advertised on, structurally altered or maintained, and no structure or land shall be used for any purpose, except as specifically provided and allowed by this Chapter, with respect to land uses, building heights, setbacks, minimum lot area, maximum percentage of building coverage and lot width, and with respect to all other regulations, conditions and limitations prescribed by this Chapter as applicable to the same zone in which such use, structure or land is located. (Am. Ord. 4054--2/1/94)
8101-3.2 No person shall use or permit to be used any building, structure, or land or erect, structurally alter or enlarge any building or structure, contract for advertising space, pay for space, or advertise on any structure except for the uses permitted by this Chapter and in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter applicable thereto.
8101-3.3 No permit or entitlement may be issued or renewed for any use, construction, improvement or other purpose unless specifically provided for or permitted by this Chapter. (Am. Ord. 3730--5/7/85)
8101-3.4 No permit or entitlement shall be issued for any use or construction on a lot which is not a legal lot. (Add. Ord. 4054--2/1/94)

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

Bernie,

The Forum recently decided, by a majority vote, that the legally permissible component of the HBU test pertains to "use" rather than "permit status." That is to say, as exmple, single family residential improvements, on a parcel zoned single family residential, remain single family residential, regardless of whether all of the improvements are legally permitted. An illegally built second unit that results in the creation of improvements defined as duplex by the jurisdictionary authority, in a single family residential zone, would fail to meet that component of the HBU analysis.

Somebody suggested a few months ago (may M. Boyd but I don't remember fosure) that appraisers would be better served by our regulatory authority if this distinction was better defined. But until then we're hanging in the wind as always...and I'm still waiting on a thread concerning the defensibility of the actions of one's peers in determining how an appraiser responds to various property nuances...)