larger parcel; the backland theory, slide back theory, front land-rear land concept

[CANative]

It sounds more like a technique that can useful in some situations for some types of properties. A residential flag lot would probably not be a good candidate for the method.

 

[KD247]

It sounds more like a technique that can useful in some situations for some types of properties. A residential flag lot would probably not be a good candidate for the method.

I was thinking it would be more applicable to rural subdividing, not something I see a lot of.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

I actually think it goes back to the mid 1800's. It is not 'theory' but just a legalistic rule. Judge Murray Hoffman created the "Hoffman rule" circa 1866. The Davies Rule was later created where Y = SQRT 1.45 (X+.0352-.226) and is based upon a standard lot of 100' = 100% of the value.
The 4-3-2-1 Depth Rule, again is just a rule, not "theory". It is a mechanical way to determine the value without straining your brain. I cannot imagine a market participant really using it blindly.

 

[Fred]

The Appraisal of Real Estate, 1927, p. 287. (Frederick)

Zangerle credited Judge Murray Hoffman of New York City. And yes, 100 feet. The first 50 feet is worth two thirds.

My man Frederick, being his usual blunt self also said value is “best discovered by inquiry into its productivity rather than its depths.” I tend to agree.

The 4-3-2-1 Depth Rule, again is just a rule, not "theory". It is a mechanical way to determine the value without straining your brain

And compared to some of the other work mentioned, it is easily the most primitive. The curves Davies developed in 1912 were based on over 10,000 sales - and no statistical software packages.

 

[farmguy]

Did the original poster leave? I thought he was referring to the practice in condemnation when they take frontage. The owner says you took my high dollar frontage and the taker says no, you still have as much depth from highway but you have less land behind the good stuff so that is what we took.
Maybe thats what yall were saying and I just misunderstood, which is certainly not out of the question.

 

[KD247]

I'm starting to understand now. This is probably one of those rules where, in the absence of any relevant data, the rule is the best basis for an analysis. I ran into a similar situation when appraising a partial interest in a residence. There was lots of data regarding court decisions, precedents, and tradition but no relevant market data.

 

[Pivopiju]

Lee ann and FarmGuy get it

Farm guy, that is principle I was talking about. I was taught it as the "slide" theory. A large enough parcel that there is two separate highest and best uses, say commercial frontage and residential development in the rear. The commercial depth stays the same, because there is no barrier to limit the "slide back" equivalent to that acquired for the right of way. That is to say there is the same amount of commercial potential depth in the before situation as in the after condition. Therefore, the only loss is to the "less" expensive highest and best use in the rear. I was asked (by a lawyer) for a citation in text but have only been able to find legal decisions that refer to the theory but no text explaining it.

 

[Howard]

FarmGuy had it right (they usually do).

In a before and after situation, assuming same physical attributes of the remainder, and no changes in access, zoning, etc., an acquisition of...oh....say 100' of frontage, with commercial potential, if not outright HBU, the remainder will have the same commercial potential. What is lost is 100' off the back in what would be considered excess site.

In the after, does the remainder not have the same commercial potential?

Where this gets screwed up, and I've actually seen this one, the 10 acres out of 200 that was being acquired from the owner was appraised by the owner's appraiser (MAI). Not 200 before and 190 after, but only the 10 acres being acquired (ignoring the larger parcel). He valued it at $50,000 per acre. DOT's appraiser (MAI) valued it as 200 before, and 190 after, as indicated above, with other allowances for damages and cost to cure, and came up with about $50,000 total damages. Second guy had it right. But the jury bought the owner's claim and awarded $500,000. Unbelievable, as this was a clear violation of eminent domain rules, but it was allowed to stand. Have always been curious as to what internal controls, if any, AI has to review this type of behavior....but I digress.

As to where it's written, I can't say. It is simply rolled into the appraisal theory of the before and after process that is used.

 

[Pivopiju]

Thanks Howard

That is the some of my problem. My lawyer did not want to mention this "theory" in court unless I could cite it in a text. I have never seen another appraiser in court recognize this theory, most say they have never heard of it. Even those with years of "right of Way" appraisal experience. It makes me wonder if they are qualified to do these kind of appraisals.

It has not been our practice not to send these appraisals to our Licensing Board for review, but I don't know why.

The question really lies in defining the "larger parcel" in order to define the highest and best use.

I think it is a concept hard for a jury (novice) to understand, but it is not for a MAI.

 

[Fred]

Unbelievable, as this was a clear violation of eminent domain rules,

Whose rules? It's hard to imagine a judge so green he or she doesn't know which arguments the jury should not be allowed to hear.