FHA Excess Land, Which site size in the grid

[J Grant]

Yes of course. But how can one make adjustments in the SCA without knowing and making equivalent line item "lot" adjustments, without conducting the same analysis for the comps, especially in the scenario when the lot value might be 30% or more of the total value, in assignments in which the subject lot is similar in size to the comparable lots.

There are no lot size adjustments for the excess land in an FHA appraisal since the instruction is not to value it

The subject site for the purpose of valuation is the size of the primary lot it sits on.

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

There are no lot size adjustments for the excess land in an FHA appraisal since the instruction is not to value it

The subject site for the purpose of valuation is the size of the primary lot it sits on.

I am 100% certain that your perspective is firmly basesd on established protocol; however, doesn't this require the subject OV to take a hit because the comp lots probablly are similar to the subject because of zoning, neighborhood patterns, etc.? Or, would the appraiser consequently include the FHA requirement for the subject's excess land to be included into the per-sq-ft adjustment factor, reducing what it would be otherwise to compensate for the artifical variances? Or, should the comp selection include a comp that brackets the subject's reduced lot size? [I have been meaning to ask this for about 20 years!]

 

[J Grant]

I am 100% certain that your perspective is firmly basesd on established protocol; however, doesn't this require the subject OV to take a hit because the comp lots probablly are similar to the subject because of zoning, neighborhood patterns, etc.? Or, would the appraiser consequently include the FHA requirement for the subject's excess land to be included into the per-sq-ft adjustment factor, reducing what it would be otherwise to compensate for the artifical variances? Or, should the comp selection include a comp that brackets the subject's reduced lot size? [I have been meaning to ask this for about 20 years!]

It is just like appraising any other property, your subject sits on one lot ( the primary lot ) and you make any adjustments to the comps lot size compared to the subject lot the way you normally do,

 

[Dublin ohio]

I am 100% certain that your perspective is firmly basesd on established protocol; however, doesn't this require the subject OV to take a hit because the comp lots probablly are similar to the subject because of zoning, neighborhood patterns, etc.? Or, would the appraiser consequently include the FHA requirement for the subject's excess land to be included into the per-sq-ft adjustment factor, reducing what it would be otherwise to compensate for the artifical variances? Or, should the comp selection include a comp that brackets the subject's reduced lot size? [I have been meaning to ask this for about 20 years!]

Your comp selection should be based on the subject's lot size used in the valuation. If the subject's primary site is 12,000 sf. You would look for sales on similar sized lots. If you have to use a sale with a substantially larger lot. Maybe you would have to analyze that lot for excess land.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Or, should the comp selection include a comp that brackets the subject's reduced lot size?

Find comps similar in land VALUE - which generally means in size and any other value factor. Otherwise, you need to make a land adjustment based upon supported values of the comparables.

 

[glenn walker]

You report the entire size of the site . You just don't adjust your comparables lot sizes based on the Excess portion if its not usable. Example. I have a 2 acre parcel but 1/2 acre in back is on a steep hill and has little to no extra value. BUT It's still located on a 2 Acre Parcel and your comps are adjusted based on it's usable area or size. Thats why you can have a 1 acre that is more valuable than a 2 acre which is not as usable.

 

[Dublin ohio]

You report the entire size of the site

Not for FHA. At least not on page 1 or the grid. You disclose the excess land in the commentary.

 

[sputnam]

If it's excess or surplus land that is included in the appraisal, the entire size goes in the grid. If, after consultation with the Client you are appraising a physical segment, only the portion you are including in the appraisal is included.

As Glenn indicated, the site adjustment shouldn't ever just be about size. It should reflect all value related differences attributable to the site.

 

[J Grant]

You report the entire size of the site . You just don't adjust your comparables lot sizes based on the Excess portion if its not usable. Example. I have a 2 acre parcel but 1/2 acre in back is on a steep hill and has little to no extra value. BUT It's still located on a 2 Acre Parcel and your comps are adjusted based on it's usable area or size. Thats why you can have a 1 acre that is more valuable than a 2 acre which is not as usable.

The above is a correct answer to a different problem, but not to the eOP question

This is not about the portion of a parcel not being usable, and it gets reported in the total but an adjustment reflects the lack of useablith of part of the site.

The FHA directive EXCLUDES the entire excesses land lot from the value on the appraisal
If we are not valuing it, why is it listed on the grid? For the HC of the report, the subject lot is 10,000 SF, and would get compared to comps of similar lot size

Then in the narrative, we explain that the parcel of land transferred to the new owner on the sale is the subject primary lot listed and includes an adjacent excess of 10,000 and together they comprise a 20,000 parcel, however per FHA instruction only the primary 10,000 SF lot of the subject is valued. Therefore that is the lot listed on the grid for 10,000 SF.

If we make an HC the subject has a not yet completed pool, we list a pool on the grid ( even though it does not exist yet) We don't list it without a pool and then adjust as if it had a pool.

 

[Tom D]

you could make an adjustment for view, father away from your neighbor. this big city, it's all about closeness or not closeness, if you can have that choice.
we can all say what FHA wants, but it is a case of stupid. anyone here thinks we really should ignore that lot, if there was no FHA rule.