• Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online  community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.

Impending site size reporting requirement

Status
Not open for further replies.

VolcanoLvr

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Professional Status
Certified Residential Appraiser
State
Washington
Thought y'all might be interested in this little survey I did. The basis for this is the impending 'new' site size reporting requirements that mama fannie & papa freddie will 'demand' as of 9/1/2011:

Over the weekend, I asked for input as to how appraisers report Site Size in the Fannie Form grid. This table represents the results of responses through Monday night 2/7/11, from appraisers in many parts of the US:

Site Size Reporting - survey results

Acre 66 60.0%
Square Ft 28 25.5%
Both 16 14.5%
Total 110

I asked this question because effective 9/01/2011, Fannie/Freddie will require Site Size for any site less than ONE ACRE to be reported as Square Feet, NOT Acres (or portion) ….. and any site of 1 Acre or more to be reported as Acres! This is for any conventional loan sold to them, reported on the 1004 and 2055 Forms.

UNLESS appraisers around the nation climb on Fannie’s back and explain how crazy this will be, and ask (politely) that this new poor requirement be modified so that site sizes are reported in a consistent manner in the report.

EXAMPLE: Subject is in a small urban area, on a .82 Acre site. Three Comps are a mix of site sizes, less than an acre and more than an acre…say up to 1.5 acres….because that’s all the sales found that are even remotely comparable in terms of GLA/Age of the properties. (This is a REAL situation in my area.)

So your grid will look like this:
Subj. Comp 1 Comp 2 Comp 3
35719 sf 20038 sf 1.1 ac 1.5 ac
(.82 Acre) (.46 Acre)
[No commas can be used, and only ‘sf’ can indicate Sq. Ft.]
[Acre must be reported as ‘ac’ – with nothing following that]

Can you imagine the U/W’s head scratching! You’re going to have to include an entire paragraph to explain this requirement, and then explain how you arrived at the site size adjustments (which you should do anyway, but now you will have to explain how you converted to Ac or SF before making the site adjustment).

Most county assessor records in our area, and other parts of the US report Site Size in terms of Acres – or a decimal portion thereof. Therefore, you will have to convert that Acre number to a Square Foot number for the report, further slowing down report writing. (I developed a Conversion Table which I will give to any appraiser for FREE who wants it … just e-mail me.... dtowne (at) fidalgo [dot] net)

FURTHER EXPLANATION: “Both” is represented in nearly 15% of responses. Some Appraisers told me they use an entry like .82 Ac/35,719 sf in the grid. Other appraisers said they currently use Square Foot for any property less than an acre, and Acres for 1+ acres (I don’t understand why!). And some appraisers said they use SF for FHA reports, believing that SF is ‘required’ by HUD/FHA – in fact they accept either per the 4150.2 manual but expect consistency in the report …. and use Acres for conventional reports.

Those appraisers who explained “Both” also stated they NEVER mix Acres with Square Foot in reports as my example shows ……… as Fannie will require as of 9/1/2011!

MY PERSONAL BELIEF: All reports should use Acre (or decimal portion), regardless of site size. MLS listings are reported that way, assessor records are that way, property owners think and talk in terms of ACRES …. not “my property is 32,670 s/f.” It’s much easier to say “3/4 of an acre.” It’s also what a majority of appraisers are doing now – overwhelmingly.

NOTE: the table and Example compress the numbers, removing spaces ... hope you can figure this out!
 
I highly doubt if the requirement is to mix acres and square feet.

Lot size of 43,500 sf = 43500

Lot size of 84,323 sf = 1.94 Ac.
 
Beats the idiots I see reporting the dimensions in the size spot. Like I'm supposed to convert all of them to compare lot sizes when I'm reviewing their report.
 
I didn't 'make up' what I reported in the OP.

I suggest all appraisers get a copy of the Fannie/Freddie Uniform Appraisal Dataset, Appendix D, dated 12/16/2010. Then sequester yourself for a few hours, perhaps with a beverage of choice, and read all 36 pages.

On pages 12 and 25 you will read how they want 'area' and 'site' reported.

After you read to page 12, you may want to refresh your beverage, because what follows in the document is not any more pleasant.
 
I have been reporting the area in square footage for less than an acre and acreage for one acre or larger for 29 years. To me that is most logical. And I always calculate the area of a site for both the subject and all comparables. Every since Apex started having the survey module available I have used that for any site different than a simple 50' x 100' for example. Occasionally I have been questioned so I send that person a copy of my Apex sketch. Many of the properties in my area are metes and bounds and the best way to verify what was actually purchased is to sketch it out in Apex to determine if it involves the entire existing parcel or is a split. Regardless of how much area they thought they purchased, what they got is what is described in their legal description. If the legal description doesn't describe what they thought they had then they need to talk to their title company, very probably a registered land surveyor and not me.
 
I think I misread your original post or didn't understand it due to the way things appear on the screen.

I understand now and don't have a problem with the new format.
 
Look at page 15, # of Stories must be reported to two decimal places. Has anyone ever seen a 0.01 story.
 
I agree with Jo Ann.

All the counties and databases I work with report small lots in SqFt and large lots in acreage and that's what I do, seems logical to me. Though I would not like to mix both.

As for slowing down report writing, I already convert when I am reviewing or gathering data from different sources, so I guess I already waste that time :/
 
In the markets that I cover, lot frontage is frequently the market determinant factor, so in those cases I utilize width x depth in the grid (i.e.: 40 x 100, 25 x 100, etc.) and make adjustments based upon differences in frontage.

Sorry Smokey, they may be idiots in your neck of the woods, but that's the way it is in the big city.

:flowers:
 
Beats the idiots I see reporting the dimensions in the size spot. Like I'm supposed to convert all of them to compare lot sizes when I'm reviewing their report.
Sorry Smokey, they may be idiots in your neck of the woods, but that's the way it is in the big city.

:flowers:
good one

Actually reporting 80' x 120' tells me more than saying 9,600 SF
a. I know it has a reasonable amount of frontage
b. It is rectangular
c. what if the 9,600 was shaped like this...which lot would be more desirable shape?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Find a Real Estate Appraiser - Enter Zip Code

Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at
AppraiserSites.com
Back
Top