Conflicting info on lot sizes

[Stephen J. Vertin MAI]

Oh yes conflicting information so common in our industry I have even put the follow within my scope. After the blurb I put any contradictions in data I found within the data I used in the report.

Information concerning descriptions and economics are provided by broker’s listings, published data systems, and or parties involved with the transaction. Many times this information is contradictory, i.e., county records say a building is one size, MLS says it is another. In review of relevant supporting data we try our best to reconcile these differences; however, no warranty can be given as to accuracy of information provided by others.

Exampled in your case I would derive contradictions and add directly after the last sentence; however, before you make your decision on which data source to uses consult your client . Most clients will want you to go with the legal due to its binding nature in loan documents. If I were you I would try my best to reconcile (especially if these are good clients). That means going out and possibly measuring the frontage if clear boundaries exist. This is not only good practice but smart business due to showing your client you are making efforts to analyze and solve his/her problem. There is not to much more you can do then that.

 

[David Durham]

Thanks for all the replies. This is not a metes and bounds legal. It's a platted sub with 60 year old houses. Basically the legal says "Lot 83, excluding the S. 140.33". This gives me the 50'.

I talked to the assessor and confirmed I have the right legal. He basically said go off the legal because he has no idea what's going on. (my interpatation of his words). I'm going off the legal and stating the differences.

 

[PropertyEconomics]

Oh yes conflicting information so common in our industry I have even put the follow within my scope. After the blurb I put any contradictions in data I found within the data I used in the report.

Information concerning descriptions and economics are provided by broker’s listings, published data systems, and or parties involved with the transaction. Many times this information is contradictory, i.e., county records say a building is one size, MLS says it is another. In review of relevant supporting data we try our best to reconcile these differences; however, no warranty can be given as to accuracy of information provided by others.

Exampled in your case I would derive contradictions and add directly after the last sentences; however, be before you make your decision on what the contradictions are consult your client . Most clients will want you to go with the legal due to its binding nature in loan documents. If I were you I would try my best to reconcile (especially if these are good clients). That means going out and possibly measuring the frontage if clear boundaries exist. This is not only good practice but smart business due to showing your client you are making efforts to analyze. There is not to much more you can do then that.

An excellent post and some very sage advice Mr Vertin. Thanks for this bit of positive feed back this morning.

 

[James Andreas]

Greg, occasional issues here in SoCal. Our Assessor, the plat, and sometimes Planning's lot sizes vary. Since the assesor is responsible for the plats, and I believe this is the highest source - the plat is my monument. The text is prone to greater error, and typically outsourced.

I itemize the disparities, and explain why I chose the particular source. From a plat, we can reasonably contrast subject's lot dimensions against others on the plat.

"Ruined" a deal this year when MLS and public records stated an executive home was on 1/2 acre while in fact, the plat and "my seasoned eye" clearly indicated 1/4 acre. Data entry error at assessor, planning, and NDC. Assessor's troubleshooter validated.

Imagine (surprise), the realtor, a vet in the area, who sold several similar homes in the area hadn't notice the error...

 

[OSU Beavers]

In our county some lot descriptions extend to the center line of the street or road. The legal description usually ends with "Excepting that portion in the road right of way" or something similar. The distance calls on the plat map sometimes show the depth of the lot as it extends to the road center line. Occasionally that last part may get cut off.

For example the plat may indicate that a lot is 60' wide by 120' deep. Since this extends to the center line you need to find the width of the road (40' in this case) and subtract half from the lot depth. The accurate lot size is 60' x 100' even though some clerk entered 60' x 120' on the tax records. I have seen entire plat maps worked by a novice assessor where the roads were added to the lot sizes. At least they were consistent.

 

[Stephen J. Vertin MAI]

In our county some lot descriptions extend to the center line of the street or road.

I have seen this in Michigan, Indiana and Illinois. In fact I am working on a deal in Green Oaks that has this. The first time I saw this it really messed me up. I was fortunate to have some older more experenced appraisers working with me.

 

[Kevin A. Spellman]

In my 22 years of appraising here in MA, I have always trained appraiser to understand the authority of data and the custodian of the data. The Assessors are not the authority of data. They are the custodians. The authority for the data in respect to legal description and the ownership comes from the deed. In the event a third party needed to make a decision, the deed would prevail and not a record card or a map in an Assessors Office.

 

[Marcia Langley]

I agree that the deed is the legal authority for the legal description. Not that title companies never make mistakes but that the recorded deed is the only document used to document the actual legal description.

When one refers to to public sources for the legal description, one is referring to the deed.

I have had homeowners dispute my reporting of the land area twice. Both times I referred the client to the deed and told them that was the most current record. If the homeowner disputed that record they needed to take it up with the recorder's office. The current deed as of the effective date is what goes into my report.

 

[wickedness1]

I'm working on one right now where all public record information (including the assessors) shows the lot size to be 70' x 800'.

However, when I calculate the lot size off of the legal description and plat map I come up with 50' x 800'. This calculation is simple and not complex.

Which would you use? There is not a big value difference between the lot sizes.

We would document both on the appraisal in the comment section and state that there is a discrepancy..you've then done your job. Let the homeowner or title compnay work it out with the county, then you can always add a comment later that the matter is cleared up and what the true lot size is. If you don't note this discrepancy, a review appraiser could and most likely would eat you alive on that one (just my opinion, lol).

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

When I noted a rather obvious discrepency in lot size recently in unincorporated San Berdardino, CA, County, with a mailing address of Ontario, I was referred from City Planning to County Planning to County Records to County Assessor, where a rep confirmed my observation that the the area of the irregularly-shaped parcel was too small, and faxed me a same-day official document indicating the amended, correct lot size. Also, NDC has a user-friendly feature that allows for "appraiser input" into inconsistencies with their data.