hastalavista
Elite Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2005
- Professional Status
- Certified General Appraiser
- State
- California
An initial concern is valid, but from what I understand, this process doesn't change the valuation-analysis. It is being used as a property-characteristic identification.This sounds problematic, and likely an issue that will have to deal with in the future. If the property is compliance with zoning, yet FNMA says that the property has a ADU and either doesn't buy the loan or changes the terms, I smell lawsuits coming.
While I say it doesn't change the valuation-analysis, there may be additional steps necessary to meet whatever additional requirements are attached to an ADU identification.
My initial question isn't focused on the scenarios where the appraiser concludes that the component is an ADU and values it as such; that hasn't changed as far as I know. I'm curious about the scenario where the appraiser determines that it isn't an ADU; it is just a rec room with a wet bar and a bath, let's say. If that triggers the ADU identification, then what more does that identification require as far as additional assignment-conditions that otherwise are not necessary if the element was treated for what the appraiser determines it is: i.e., GLA and part of the primary living area?