lakefront or lakeview?

[marytt]

Lakefront, Lakeview, Lake Access

Here in Georgia on Lake Lanier it is a Corps of Engineers Lake, so appraisal assignments get quite interesting. No one owns the lake property, the corps does, but you have use of it and that is where the real value lies.

If your property runs up to the corps line AND you have a boat dock permit you have lakefront property. If you have water behind your home but no permit, you have lake access property. If you have lakeviews but no access behind your home, you have lakeview. Values range wildly for all three types in this area.

Main issues on the value are VIEWS first, topo, amount of frontage on the lake, depth of water (A REAL issue now with our severe drought), location on the lake itself, size of lot, etc etc. But as many have stated here, it all boils down to what the market will pay for the various features of the lake property.

Lake property is complex for many reasons... all put forth here on this forum, you are right whoever said, they should have charged more for the assignment! Complexity and liability make it worth that higher fee. Plus expertise.

I love lakefront property assignments, Nothing boring about these~:Emoticon_hug:

Have a great sunday everyone!

 

[Joyce Potts]

Joyce makes some valid points. But, riparian rights do not require that one owns the land underneath the water. The site abuts the lake. They have access whether or not their lot extends into the water. That means it is lakefront. The market will tell you how to consider this property on the grid. Find similar comparables. Examine properties (even if they didn't sell recently) with similar type sites. If a significant percentage have docks, etc then you must consider this. If there is a HOA contact them and question them about this situation. Perhaps the HOA owns the land underneath the lake. Perhaps, the owner of the subject owns the separate parcel under the water, check it out. Mention the disparity in your comments and adjust appropriately. The sales comparison approach will not necessarily reflect a reaction to the different types of lots. Then again, it may.

Remember, you must report the facts as they are. This means you must accurately describe the site. You must also form an opinion of value based on the market which may be contrary to the absence of land extending into the water. You can't penalize the subject property if the market does not recognize the lack of land extending into the lake. Then again, you can't reward it if the market does recognize that fact. Then it's up to you to reconcile; explain why your opinion of market value is what it is when the facts are what they are.

Our job is not to form a legal opinion. It is to report the facts and form an opinion of value. That is all.

I used to think the same thing, but with the several incidents I was involved with, it's just NOT that simple anymore. Riparian rights has to do with the public right to access the water ONLY, not necessarily the land underneath it. The issue becomes, what if the State owns the water, but the lake bottom is owned by a private individual? Riparian rights do not automatically afford access to publically owned waters over privately owned property.

I consider the optimum lake ownership being when the lot is platted into the middle of the lake. In my case, the SE side of my property is platted almost 50' above the high mean water mark. My lakefront property was platted to run along the shoreline, or where the shoreline ONCE WAS! Because the City of Altamonte Springs finally PURCHASED the DEED from the person who bought the tax deed certificate for the bottom of this lake (the SOB beat me to it), technically the City of Altamonte Springs owns that strip of land between my property and the high mean watermark.

The fight that ensued had to do with the city wanting to open a "passive" park on the other side of the lake, affording the general public access to the lake. Myself and just about every other lakefront property owner had multiple objections, however, MY primary objection was that theoretically someone could launch a canoe from that park, paddle over to what appears to be my back yard, pitch and tent and camp on that strip of CITY OWNED LAND.

My second major objection was that it made obtaining a permit for building a dock. It now requires both the City of Altamonte AND the EPA permission for obtaining a dock permit. The City has gotten extremely restrictive about docks for some lakes. So being the amicable people person that I am, I said screw em, and we're building a floating dock! rofl

As far as the market telling you the inherent value of the different types of lakefront, lakeview and lakeshore ownership, unfortunately, there is a high number of people who buy these properties and don't really have a clue until something happens. They generally perceive that they are always lakefront, regardless of how their survey reads.

I was trying to purchase the lake bottom from the buy who bought it from the county tax deed sale and was in negotiations until the City of Altamonte filed a lawsuit challenging the validity of that tax deed sale. It became a non-issue when the City finally realized they were on shakey ground and simply went to the owner and made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

It's never simple.

 

[c w d]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riparian_water_rights

http://www.mlswa.org/murray-lake-437/Raparian.htm

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/lands/surv_map/ripright.htm

http://dictionary.law.com/definition.asp?selected=1863&bold=||||

Each of these links references the rights of the owner of land that forms the bank of a body of water.

There are two terms that represent water rights.....unfortunately, I cannot remember the other and my texts are at the office right now so I cannot iterate it.

But, as far as I know riparian rights pertain to the land owner....perhaps it is the other term I cannot remember that pertains to the public?

Joyce, I understand that water rights in general are very complex issues. But, in our case it really is that simple. The sales comparison approach only deals with market reaction regardless of various realities. State the facts. Analyze the market data. How are you going to justify negative adjustments to comparables with similar attributes as the subject? I'm sorry but, thats not how the comparison approach works.

 

[wickedness1]

I did find the full plat map for that lake though and the last sentence reads "The Ordinary High Water line location has not been determined; The state of Florida may have claim of title to those lands lying in the waters of Lake xxxx, Lake xxxx and Lake xxxx, which claim may Affect the location of the lakefront lot lines."

My hunch (not knowledge, guessing only) is that the subject's lot line stops where the surveyor felt the "Ordinary High Water Line" would be when the development was first established. It appears that maybe the "strip of land" between the subject & the lake may be owned by the State of Florida and considered the "lake". With permits for the dock as it has indicated already on the post.


Just a thought, as I am no where near Florida, as a matter of fact our wind chills today are <15> degrees! But dad called from Boca to tell me you guys are just under 80 degrees with a nice breeze throught the palm trees....GRRRR

 

[Joyce Potts]

Remember, there are still lake bottoms within Florida that are privately owned. How big is your lake? If it over 30 acres, you're probably right the State of Florida owns it. If it's less than 30 acres, you may have a problem.

 

[wickedness1]

This may be a stupic question, but why would someone want to own a lake bottom? Would they get money from people using the lake or something?

Another off the subject question..are there alligators in those lakes?

 

[Joyce Potts]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riparian_water_rights

http://www.mlswa.org/murray-lake-437/Raparian.htm

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/lands/surv_map/ripright.htm

http://dictionary.law.com/definition.asp?selected=1863&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C

Each of these links references the rights of the owner of land that forms the bank of a body of water.

There are two terms that represent water rights.....unfortunately, I cannot remember the other and my texts are at the office right now so I cannot iterate it.



But, as far as I know riparian rights pertain to the land owner....perhaps it is the other term I cannot remember that pertains to the public?

Joyce, I understand that water rights in general are very complex issues. But, in our case it really is that simple. The sales comparison approach only deals with market reaction regardless of various realities. State the facts. Analyze the market data. How are you going to justify negative adjustments to comparables with similar attributes as the subject? I'm sorry but, thats not how the comparison approach works.

I don't' disagree that the appraiser has to look to the market to see how the market perceives value, but I think this discussion is equally about caveatting the report to insure that nothing is misinterpreted or the appraisers ends up inadvertently misleading someone.

In my experience, I've encountered many people who have a different perception and interpretation of the terms lakefront, lakeview and lakeshore. I know I did up until I had my first eye opening encounter on this topic. Before that, I never really paid much attention as to how or why being platted into the lake was any different than not being platted into the lake.

Many buyers perceive the value of the property based on faulty perceptions of what lakefront means. One such lawsuit resulted over a similar topic when a buyer sued the Realtor, appraiser and Seller over a house purchased on a non-lakefront property on Lake Killarney in Winter Park. The Seller who lived there for 30 years indicated the property had deeded lake access to a community lakefront parcel, when in fact, it did not. The buyers weren't lying--they bought the property based on that assumption and just carried it with them and it was never an issue. Unfortunately, no one bothered to research the title before, during or shortly after closing. It wasn't until months later when the buyer tried to put a boat in that he was prohibited, hence the games began!

How many people look at a single family, DETACHED home and have no clue, (or do they really care), that it may be deeded as a condo? Legality vs. the perception is the issue here and whether or not the market perceived value was based on any faulty perceptions, is my point.

 

[Michigander]

I live on a lake; our land extends a corner of the lot into the waters edge, but as the water level rises and falls every year, within the year, sometimes I own into the lake and other times as far as a foot from it. Our lake was platted in the 1930's and no one's plat says "to the waters edge" but everyone in all practicality has lake frontage.

Like Joyce, there was an individual who owned the lake bottom (actually the two families that originally platted the lake owned it jointly) but last year finally deeded it to the lake association. In Michigan, we own the land that we sit on and the State owns the water (135 acre lake) and the association now owns the water bottom. Everyone who owns on the lake and pays their dues is a member of the association, so all of us in some way or other owns the lake bottom as long as we continue to pay our dues.

In this situation, no one would ever say we don't have lake frontage, but in other instances I have seen properties that look like they have lake frontage, but another individual owns a swath of land in front of the house. I saw this once with a property I was appraising and made all sorts of disclosures on it (the swath of land was about 30 feet wide) and that they didn't have title to that land and it belonged to so and so, about 5 lots away (the entire stretch of that part of the lake was owned by this person). In this instance, it did affect value tremendously and when the house sold, it sold at a great discount over what the actual lake properties sold for. The owner of the swath of land was benevolent and didn't impede access, but certainly had the ability to do so, which I believe is paramount.