HC needed if the assignment conditions are described & multiple parcels identified

[ZZGAMAZZ]

Assignment is conventional re-fi.
Per assignment conditions, the appraisal pertains to 2 adjacent parcels with one owner [who purchased several properties together a few years ago] one of the parcels improved with SFR and the other vacant.
I will describe the assignment conditions, identify both parcels, and the "reason" they can be appraised during one assignment [awaiting tile, deed, etc].
That having been said, is a HC needed?
I think not because what I am appraising is being described/disclosed so nothing that I know to be incorrect is being reported.
Thank you.

 

[J Grant]

There is no HC
You are describing the property being conveyed in the hypothetical subject transaction in the SC approach (( like we do for any other appraisal. Only this time, you are describing that the property consists of a house on its own lot, together with an adjacent vacant lot.

 

[sputnam]

HCs are not required for an appraisal of multiple tax parcels appraised as a single economic unit. They also aren't required for an appraisal of a portion of a tax parcel... or if you are appraising the land only when there is a dwelling... or if you are appraising any stick or sticks of the bundle of rights. What is required is that the property you are appraisng be clearly described.

BTW, there is an AO or FAQ about this.

 

[Mark K]

What is the HBU of the second parcel? Is it a viable, buildable lot? Does the client want both parcels appraised as one large parcel with no consideration for an alternate use, is it excess land but the client wants it appraised as surplus? If this is the case, a HC would be in order.

If it's excess and the client wants it appraised as such, i.e., a large, one-line adjustment on the grid, then no HC is necessary.

 

[Lee Lansford ASA]

My guess is that--assuming here an appraisal for mortgage lending where Fannie/Freddie requirements as embedded in the form report apply--that MOST appraisers would screw this up, doing as requested with no understanding of the problem in front of them. Keep in mind that the 1004 is for a SFR or SFR w/ADU, not a SFR with an additional parcel that has a H&BU separate from the SFR improved parcel.

 

[J Grant]

My guess is that--assuming here an appraisal for mortgage lending where Fannie/Freddie requirements as embedded in the form report apply--that MOST appraisers would screw this up, doing as requested with no understanding of the problem in front of them. Keep in mind that the 1004 is for a SFR or SFR w/ADU, not a SFR with an additional parcel that has a H&BU separate from the SFR improved parcel.

I am not aware of a rule or regulation about that.

An SFR can be sold with an additional lot included in teh sale, and appraisers can appraise the package deal and put it on a URAR form since there is no prohibion of it.

The HBU issues and value issues are part of the appraisal anaysis.

 

[Lee Lansford ASA]

I am not aware of a rule or regulation about that.

An SFR can be sold with an additional lot included in teh sale, and appraisers can appraise the package deal and put it on a URAR form since there is no prohibion of it.

The HBU issues and value issues are part of the appraisal anaysis.

What do you mean by your last sentence?

But, nevertheless, your approach here is incorrect and I'll tell you why and possibly save you from a sanction of your license.

As I stated in my prior post, the 1004 is for the appraisal of a SFR or SFR with an ADU. This is basic and not to be ignored (in complying with Fannie/Freddie).

Second, a vacant parcel with a H&BU separate--meets all 4 tests-- from the SFR improved is an entity with a MV of its own. Question: Would you ignore the market in this instance in order to lump the 2 together for an opinion of "value" that is something other than MV? I hope not.

Third, and following from above, someone else in this string string CORRECTLY stated that if the 2 are to be combined AS THOUGH the vacant parcel's H&BU is NOT apart from the SFR parcel, a Hypothetical condition is required.

Fourth, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND that you carefully study USPAP FAQs 183 "Value in Use Request from Federally Regulated Lender" and 217 "Appraising Two Lots As One" (side-note: the then ASB nember who was the primary author of 217 and I had several conversations, before and after 217's publication about this topic).

Fifth, if you chose the wrong road, opting to lump the two together and pretending they were one, when you appropriately "X" the NO box to the "highest and best use" question on page 1 of the 1004, what do you suspect follows ?

That's it and it's not debatable given the parameters of the problem at hand.

 

[J Grant]

I would respond, but Lee declared it not debatable! I will say that Fannie Mae loans on an SFR with an adjacent lot and accepts appraisals for it on the URAR form.

 

[Lee Lansford ASA]

I would respond, but Lee declared it not debatable! I will say that Fannie Mae loans on an SFR with an adjacent lot and accepts appraisals for it on the URAR form.

I would respond, but Lee declared it not debatable! I will say that Fannie Mae loans on an SFR with an adjacent lot and accepts appraisals for it on the URAR form.

And you're not understanding where there might be distinctions and where appraisers merely muck it up.

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

And you're not understanding where there might be distinctions and where appraisers merely muck it up.

If JG doesnt understand I sure dont either! Your perspective appears to be irrefutable. Digressing much: Do licensed lenders, etc., have any obligation to avoid appraisal requests that are untenable, or inappropriate [even though appraiser is responsible for SoW].