can you appraise part of a parcel

[Stone]

Indeed my experience is limited to the Seattle/Tacoma/Everett/Olympia metropolitan area, where the various land use departments have never met a regulation they didn't like. Clearly I can't speak for the entire country. However, I still stand by the advice to make any partial-lot appraisal subject to a legal subdivision. If making it legal consists of just the county assessor rubber-stamping the new lot with it's own ID number, then that's great. I wouldn't rely on the mere existence a private survey or a deed, because in the end it's only a governmental authority that can deem a lot legal (what with them being "the law" and all).

But, your recommendation is still based on your limited experience in that area. I have found that this is one of those areas that is absolutely local and that people tend to think what happens in their area is how things work elsewhere. This isn't specifically aimed at you other than to counter what came off as advice aimed at everyone based on your job experience. This has come up from time to time and there are some posters who are absolutely convinced that they know how things work throughout the country based on their little sample size so I wanted to chime in. I can tell you that there are many areas that are not at all like what you described. And, again, I say this as someone who appraises land as a majority of my practice and appraises ownerships that are less than the whole thing routinely.

What I will say that I hope people get from this is that they need to really understand how things work in the specific area they are appraising.

A little off topic, but from time to time I hear the grave warnings about how difficult vacant land assignments are. I don't think they are any more difficult than anything else, however what an appraiser has to know is sometimes different. Knowledge of zoning and subdivision ordinances, including who can give you real answers on things, is something that I think probably trips up people who don't do a lot of larger tract work.

 

[Stone]

It's a taxable lot...that's all.



An assessor's parcel (at least in the jurisdictions I work) is not the same as a building parcel. An assessor's parcel can be created without regard to zoning. A common example is a lot that overlays various taxing jurisdictions. There's an extreme example right around the corner from our office: one legal, nonsubdivisible building lot is divided into three assessor's parcels, since it is divided by a village boundary and a school district boundary.

Interestingly, this isn't universal, either. There are townships where the local municipality has frozen (supposedly permanent, but ya know...) all rural lots based on existing tax parcels at a time and point. Those tax parcels became lots of record and cannot be divided. So, while I generally agree with you, there are a couple of townships that treat the tax parcel as the legal lot.

Where I work, this is pretty uncommon, but does exist.

 

[The Warrior Monk]

Stone: See attached photo for example. The two number parcels (12.1 and 12.2) are divided by a school district line. The portion of the lot in the upper left-hand corner (unnumbered because it is part of an adjoining map) is where the incorporate village/town line is located.

 

[CANative]

Interestingly, this isn't universal, either. There are townships where the local municipality has frozen (supposedly permanent, but ya know...) all rural lots based on existing tax parcels at a time and point. Those tax parcels became lots of record and cannot be divided. So, while I generally agree with you, there are a couple of townships that treat the tax parcel as the legal lot.

Where I work, this is pretty uncommon, but does exist.

There are also creative ways to get around frozen lots. Some involve annexation into a nearby city. Some involve a nifty plan that benefits a county or city. Some can involve a title search going back to the 19th century which demonstrates a legal subdivision, etc., etc.

I'm helping another appraiser on a 358 acre tract right behind my office. Base zoning requires 160 acres, but it has a frozen lot designation on it's combining district, so no split. One planner things the combining district is in error, another does not think there is an error, and still another states that the property has got an approval to develop a dozen 10 - 20 acre sites but can't find the documents and up to now all the owner has done is drilled some test wells. :Eyecrazy:

Appraising land is sometimes like appraising a blank canvas.

 

[The Warrior Monk]

A little off topic, but from time to time I hear the grave warnings about how difficult vacant land assignments are. I don't think they are any more difficult than anything else, however what an appraiser has to know is sometimes different. Knowledge of zoning and subdivision ordinances, including who can give you real answers on things, is something that I think probably trips up people who don't do a lot of larger tract work.

The highlighted portions are key.

There are also other issues that may come into play, such as health department regulations in areas that don't have public sewage disposal or public water supplies.

 

[stangtime]

This has been one of the most interesting threads I've seen in a long time. And ironically I'm dealing with a somewhat similar order right now. It's on hold as my fee requirement has drastically risen.

Dan

 

[Stone]

Stone: See attached photo for example. The two number parcels (12.1 and 12.2) are divided by a school district line. The portion of the lot in the upper left-hand corner (unnumbered because it is part of an adjoining map) is where the incorporate village/town line is located.

David - my point is that what you discussed isn't universal. I am well aware that different tax parcels may mean zip when it comes to what is an actual lot - see my responses to eld2310.

Edit to add - for most of the areas I work, this is pretty much the case. tax parcels mean little and it is all based on zoning and subdivision ordinances.

In your next post you highlighted what I'm really trying to get at in this thread. Dealing with lots, zoning, subdividing, tax parcels, etc. is one of the most "local" aspects there is in appraising. It is a good thing to discuss them here, but I balk at people saying what something is for one area based on how it is in their area. Just in WI alone, we go from townships with zero zoning and subdivision ordinances (beyond county floodplain/shoreland and wetlands) to counties where the parcels are permanently set or the exact number of splits there are is settled going forward.

 

[Stone]

There are also creative ways to get around frozen lots. Some involve annexation into a nearby city. Some involve a nifty plan that benefits a county or city. Some can involve a title search going back to the 19th century which demonstrates a legal subdivision, etc., etc.

I'm helping another appraiser on a 358 acre tract right behind my office. Base zoning requires 160 acres, but it has a frozen lot designation on it's combining district, so no split. One planner things the combining district is in error, another does not think there is an error, and still another states that the property has got an approval to develop a dozen 10 - 20 acre sites but can't find the documents and up to now all the owner has done is drilled some test wells. :Eyecrazy:

Appraising land is sometimes like appraising a blank canvas.

It is somewhat like a blank canvas, but for many types of properties there is truth to that. Not so much a single family residence on a residential lot that cannot be otherwise developed, but for many improved properties there can be a lot of different ways to look at them. Kind of the good and bad of appraisal. :new_smile-l:

 

[CANative]

Trying to figure out the comps involves this type of analysis:

"What were they thinking?"

"What in the ef were they thinking?!"

"Were they even thinking?"

"Wow! They really were thinking."

:new_all_coholic:

 

[The Warrior Monk]

David - my point is that what you discussed isn't universal.

I'm well aware of that...I typically use a caveat in my first response to such posts.

One of the things I try to emphasize, as a general rule, is that what the assessor does is not the same as what the building/planning department does. There seems to be a tendency to interchange the two. For example, just because a tax lot exists doesn't mean it's a building lot, just because a property pays taxes on a particular use doesn't mean the use is legal, etc.