Could The Subject Be Rebuilt On Same Foundation/footprint If Destroyed?

[Mark K]

It's a simple zoning question..

Maybe in your area.

Around here, for non-conforming properties, if the building is destroyed beyond 50% of its value, it must be rebuilt to the current zoning guidelines.

This means the new building must meet current size, setback, and septic guidelines. Side setbacks have changed form 3' to 6' to 10' to 15' in the time I've been appraising. Front and rear setbacks have also changed and if the foundation doesn't conform to current regs, i.e. proper setbacks, it must be moved.

Septic system requirements have changed and some older lots will not accommodate the new septic systems, rendering some lots unbuildable.

Also, the minimum size used to be 1,000 s.f., its 1,200 s.f. today so the old foundation may not suffice.

Other issues can affect re-buildability so no, its not a SIMPLE zoning question.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

12345

 

[Mike Kennedy]

I find that when I include a summary of the zoning (with a discussion of the development standards consistent with AO-11 and its zoning summary example) no one asks about rebuild unless the improvement is non-conforming.
And, in that case, I do what RSW and Randolph advised, or I excerpt the relevant non-conforming zoning language from the ordinance in my report. I always advise that if they need a level of confirmation greater than what I can supply, that they should obtain a rebuild letter from the appropriate jurisdiction to satisfy their concerns.
I don't see any extra risk in following that process; in fact, I see it as reducing my risk to near zero: I've cited the code, referred to the relevant sections, made my conclusion (which is consistent with the SOW and expectations of the users for this type of assignment as well as my peers), and I've referred the client to the appropriate source for further confirmation if it concludes additional confirmation is prudent. I've "layed it out". The lender is a sophisticated user of appraisals and has the wherewithal to take the information, read and understand it, and can determine if they should accept/rely on it as-presented or go to the next level as I have advised in the report.
Done deal.

DITTO

 

[Tawfik Ahdab]

These rebuild statements are legal opinions. Are you sure you want to issue a legal opinion? Or would you not prefer to refer it to the governing authority?

Of the many things we already have to do one that we should avoid is playing lawyer

 

[Bobby Bucks]

Of the many things we already have to do one that we should avoid is playing lawyer

Excellent advice, that's one of the first things my BIC told me when I first entered the RE business.

 

[hastalavista]

These rebuild statements are legal opinions. Are you sure you want to issue a legal opinion? Or would you not prefer to refer it to the governing authority?

Of the many things we already have to do one that we should avoid is playing lawyer

In general, we make conclusions regarding the likelihood of legal permissibility many times. I hear the "we are not lawyers.." comment and I agree. But providing a conclusion regarding some aspect of the zoning ordinance is what we (as trained professionals) can do and actually do all the time.

One can always defer and recommend the client obtain a definitive opinion from whatever source is appropriate.
But I see no added liability in (a) including the zoning ordinance (by excerpt or reference; I prefer excerpt); (b) concluding what it says (and a phone call to the jurisdiction can usually confirm the conclusion... at least in my markets), and; (c) then adding in the report that the client is advised to confirm this conclusion if it needs an additional level of certainty.

"This is what it says, this is what I think, and this is how I'm going to go forward with it based on all of that. If you need more certainty, go get a definitive ruling from the jurisdiction."​

Here, again, is another example where trained appraisers have an advantage over non-trained valuation sources. i prefer to use that advantage when I can. Of course, axiomatic to my advice is that the appraiser understands how to communicate analysis and is confident in their ability to make reasonable conclusions and comment on the limitations of the data. Anyone who is not comfortable with that level of perceived risk should just say "no"; go to the jurisdiction. I don't have a problem doing the research that is reasonable at my level, coming to a conclusion, and then telling the client, "to confirm what I've found, you should go to the jurisdiction".

But, that's me.

IMO, an appraiser is more apt to get him/herself into a bind by not researching and summarizing the research of an issue like this vs. researching it and summarizing the findings of that research; if the research is sufficient enough where a reasonable conclusion can be drawn, then I draw it. In all cases, I refer the client to the authority to confirm the findings if there are any concerns.

 

[Tawfik Ahdab]

Denis,

I think we're ultimately saying the same thing but me in a shorter form.

I'm not trying to shirk my duties as an interpreter of the real estate world surrounding me but on the other hand I will not purpot to answer all the questions that come to the fancy of underwriters just because they can ask them and rely on us as though we were oracles of some sort

 

[CindyR]

It's a simple zoning question. Call zoning, get an answer (or not) and report your findings.

I had a client demanding a rebuild letter once so i called the city. They were happy to research the property and issue one for an $800 fee. I let the client know their options on the issue.

 

[DTB]

I had a client demanding a rebuild letter once so i called the city. They were happy to research the property and issue one for an $800 fee. I let the client know their options on the issue.

Hopefully you added $100 to the $800 fee for your assistance in the matter.

These clients know all too well how to get the info, they just want it free, fast and with an appraiser's signature attached to it.

 

[Sid Holderly]

It depends who is on the exception and variance board when destruction is more than 50%. Their vote rules.