Condo or zero lot line property?

[Anonymous]

Don and Brad:

Ok, I thought I would get out my NC Real Estate book, published by the commision. And this is what I found:

Pg48.

"the term condominium refers to that form of property ownership under which one owns outright a paticular unit in a multiunit structure or complex and also shares ownership, along with all other unit owners, of the building(s) and land that make up the multiunit complex."

"the various unit owners hold an undivided interest as tenants in common in the common areas.....(3) the land on which the building(s) stand..."

This was all refering to the NC condominium Act (chapter 47C).

It later discusses townhouse ownership and states : "The major differences between a townhouse and a condominium are (1) A townhouse owner owns in severalty not only his unit (including the entire physical structure) but also the plot of land on which the unit rests, whereas a condominium owner only owns in severalty the enclosed space inside his unit."

This is how I thought it was. However, Don, I do not know where you are from, but if anyone has an example of a condo that the unit owner owns the land the unit sits on in severalty (I dont care if it is attached or detached) in the state of North Carolina, I would love to get the data on the development. I would really like to research it and find out how it can be a condo in light of the Condo Act.

Thanks

 

[Don Clark]

8)

Bill:

I live in Virginia but own a townhouse(not a condo) in Kitty Hawk, NC.

I cannot give you any examples in NC but many in Virginia. Again, send me your fax number and I will. Seems like NC, like a lot of states, people, and appraisers, confuses a form of ownership to a form of architecture. But hey, that's what makes life interesting. I suppose any developer who wants to build a SFR detached condo on it's own tract of land in NC will have to have the law modified.

Don

 

[Anonymous]

Don:

Thanks for all of your info. I guess the question really is how that form of ownership is defined by law. Those of us who have different opinions than you really dont have it wrong. In your state, obviously, that form of ownership is defined differently than it is in our state. I know that a condo is a form of ownership. We simply define that form of ownership differently in different states.

Bill

 

[Don Clark]

8)

Bill:

Exactly :!: My point is that we should not automatically think that something is not so just because we have not experienced it.

BTW, I am appraising a single family detached condo today. All of my comps in the neighborhood and in other neighborhoods are SFR comps. We have a skad of them here in Virginia Beach.

Don

"What the mind can conceive, we can achieve, if we only believe". I think of that every time I pass the Wright brothers memorial when at the outer banks.

 

[Paul Ness MAI]

If they own the land under the unit in fee, it's not condo ownership, regardless of the architectural style of the building. However, the answer lies in the courthouse, as someone else said - check the documentation. :wink:

 

[bradellis]

Bill-

Exactly. In your state one cannot own the land under the unit and have it be a condo. This is by law in your state. I believe it is the same in both IL and CA, but I'd have to check. I do not know about VA.

Don's examples were great- thanks Mr. C., (I'll be using them in a class this year).

Brad

 

[Anonymous]

Don:

I know there can be SFR detached condos. I have appraised many. They just dont own the land on which the unit sits. I jumped into this thread because it seemed as if people were being talked down to if they did not believe a condo could own land (in severalty). Perhaps were they are from, they can not. I wouldlike to see the legal definition from the state of VA on a condo. Just to compare it to other states.

 

[Paul Ness MAI]

Condo ownership can certainly include land, but based on the description in the original post, I suspected they were not condos. However, I did say they need to confirm the form of ownership in the courthouse.

Here in PA, we even have "subdivision" of tracts for commercial development into lots that are defined as condo "units" in the declaration. The purpose is to circumvent the land development red tape required under normal tract subdivision.

 

[Don Clark]

8)
Brad, you are most welcome.

Paul:

Excellent post. We have a local lawyer who bought a duplex, then turned it into a 2 unit condo(we have lot's of those in the resort area. 2 unit condos maximize the value of a site by having 2 units on site), then he sold 1 unit, then bought it back. Now he has a condo with himself. :roll:

Virtually every type of condo is possible it seems in this state.

Don

 

[Tom Hildebrandt]

Don, Bill and all

Just food for thought.

An appraiser last year had a formal hearing before the NCAB, caused in part by just this issue. The appraiser had really done some pretty bad stuff in his data selection, but it was driven by the decisions or lack thereof in identifying the property as condo or was it a town house.

You would have thought by the time it got to a hearing, the ace investigative staff would have uncovered this as the main issue, but it took the board about three hours to sort out that the legal description, as filed at the courthouse called it a "townhouse condominium." Of course, the tax office called it a condo and the listing agent called it a townhouse ( I may have gotten who did what backward but...you get the drift.) The ace NCAB investigators never addressed the issue.

The appraiser had first been told by the client to appraise it as a townhouse, then was asked to do it again as a condo. (perhaps it was the other way around, I forget exactly but you get the drift) The property owner was not happy with either work product, nor was the reviewer for the lender ( the reviewer sent the appraisal to the board without telling the lender who testified on behalf of the appraiser respondent saying he was happy with his work), hence the dispute before the board.

The appraisers defense was that he selected comps for the selected property type (in both cases he ignored sales in the same complex, this was the error the NCAB ace investigators noted) as directed by the client. Said he was just trying to please the client.

None of this logic set well with the board (rightly so), but all in all, it took them three hours to figure out what the investigative staff should have done if they were competent at doing investigative review work.

My cut was the main violation in standards for the respondent was a failure to adequately identify the pertinent property characteristics, this was not found, just that he used bad comps.

I think this case is on appeal, but the NCAB does not discuss these issues publicly.

Regards

Tom Hildebrandt GAA