• 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.

Legal non-conforming, and illegal?

Status
Not open for further replies.
RStrahan said:
It may be illegal. However.....in some markets, even though the basement unit is illegal, I have seen the units sell with these "illegal" units and the market give value for them.

Disclose what you have found, and, if necessary, explain how the market is reacting to the units.

I would be very careful giving value to an illegal unit. We used to have an abundance near OSU, still some around. Several years ago code enforcement cracked down on the illegal units, vacating them. Many of them had the balance of the property as legal, non-conforming, these units were fine. But I would be very careful, get one upset tenant that decides to call code enforment and watch out.
 
The appraiser is responsible for reporting the specific zoning classification for the subject property. The appraiser must include a general statement to describe what the zoning permits—"one-family," "two-family," etc.—when he or she indicates a specific zoning such as R-1, R-2, etc. The appraiser also must include a specific statement indicating whether the improvements represent a legal use; a legal, but non-conforming (grandfathered) use; or an illegal use under the zoning regulations; or whether there is no local zoning.

We generally will not purchase or securitize a mortgage on a property if the improvements do not constitute a legally permissible use of the land. We do make certain exceptions to this policy, as long as the property is appraised and underwritten in accordance with the special requirements we impose as a condition to agreeing to make the exception:

• We will purchase or securitize a mortgage that is secured by a one-family to four-family property or a unit in a PUD project if the property represents a legal, but non-conforming, use of the land—as long as the appraiser's analysis reflects any adverse effect that the non-conforming use has on the value and marketability of the property.

• We will purchase or securitize a condominium unit mortgage or a cooperative share loan from a project that represents a legal, but non-conforming, use of the land only if the improvements can be rebuilt to current density in the event of their partial or full destruction. (In such cases, the mortgage file must include a copy of the applicable zoning regulations or a letter from the local zoning authority that authorizes reconstruction to current density.)

• We will purchase or securitize a mortgage secured by a one-family or two-family property that includes an illegal additional unit or accessory apartment (which may be referred to as a mother-in-law, mother-daughter, or granny unit) as long as the illegal use conforms to the subject neighborhood and to the market. The property must be appraised based upon its current use and the borrower must qualify for the mortgage without considering any rental income from the illegal unit. The appraiser must report that the improvements represent an illegal use and demonstrate that the improvements are typical for the market through an analysis of at least three comparable properties that have the same illegal use. The lender also must make sure that the existence of the illegal additional unit will not jeopardize any future hazard insurance claim that might need to be filed for the property. We will not purchase or securitize a mortgage secured by a three-family to four-family property that includes an illegal accessory apartment.

• We will not purchase or securitize a mortgage secured by a property that is subject to certain land-use regulations (such as coastal tideland or wetland laws) that create setback lines or other provisions that prevent the reconstruction (or maintenance) of the property improvements if they are damaged or destroyed. (The intent of these types of land-use regulations is to remove existing land uses and to stop land development—including the maintenance or construction of seawalls—within specific setback lines.)
 
Cynthia Hamilton said:
I'm doing a duplex/triplex - the duplex is legal non-conforming, and there's an additional unit done without permits, no way will it ever be legal, since the zoning is single family + accessory, and the duplex use is grandfathered.

Aside from wishing I could be there to watch the flip out when they read it, should I be checking 2 boxes here ? Legal-nonconforming AND illegal?

Question if the basement was not rented out would you mark it as legal?

I picture a raised ranch with finished basement and a detached accessory unit behind. As in current use the main floor is unit 1, the accessory unit is #2 and the walkout basement is unit #3. Is that correct?

Zoning allows a single family with an accessory unit. The use as a duplex has been approved and grandfathered in. Therefore unit 1 & 2 are legal.

If the finished basement is not rented out would it still be legal? In most places the answer would be yes. So the improvements are not illegal, and they are not non-conforming unless there are no other improvements with accessory units in the area.

If I'm on track here the current use of the finished basement by the owner is what is illegal. Cost to cure would be evicting the tenants of unit #3 leaving a kitchen in finished basement as an over improvement.

Do I have the wrong mental picture of the improvement?
 
Hall McClenahan said:
If the finished basement is not rented out would it still be legal?
No, because it wasn't done with permits, and the city wouldn't issue permits to make it legal, unless they removed the kitchen and bath (or maybe the bath could stay, but not the kitchen). The basement was unfinished when purchased, and was converted more recently, without permits.


If I'm on track here the current use of the finished basement by the owner is what is illegal. Cost to cure would be evicting the tenants of unit #3 leaving a kitchen in finished basement as an over improvement.
The current USE is owner occupied for the entire building, extended family and all. To muddle things up further, the 2 flats have been combined to be 1 unit with 2 kitchens and baths, they removed the wall separating the 2 entrances on the interior. So there are two separate units now - basement and upper floors, but the flats could be easily separated again. Either way, since the basement work was not done with permits, its use is irrelevant. It's not how the basement is used, it's the fact that it was finished and kitchen and bath installed without permits. Too bad, it's the nicest unit.
 
Cynthia Hamilton said:
No, because it wasn't done with permits, and the city wouldn't issue permits to make it legal, unless they removed the kitchen and bath (or maybe the bath could stay, but not the kitchen). The basement was unfinished when purchased, and was converted more recently, without permits.

thanks I got the picture now. In that case I would be inclined to mark Illegal and describe.

My thinking is if any part is illegal then the whole is effected. I think it would be confusing to mark both a legal and an Illegal box.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm voting with Hoppy - no check boxes checked to avoid confusion and a "see attached addenda" with lots of splaining in the addenda.

Thanks folks!
 
Cynthia- hope you check back before turning in the report -

"Either way, since the basement work was not done with permits, its use is irrelevant. It's not how the basement is used, it's the fact that it was finished and kitchen and bath installed without permits."

It's Illegal.


FANNIE: We will purchase or securitize a mortgage secured by a one-family or two-family property that includes an illegal additional unit or accessory apartment (which may be referred to as a mother-in-law, mother-daughter, or granny unit) as long as the illegal use conforms to the subject neighborhood and to the market.

The property must be appraised based upon its current use and the borrower must qualify for the mortgage without considering any rental income from the illegal unit.

***********The appraiser MUST report that the improvements represent an ILLEGAL USE and demonstrate that the improvements are typical for the market through an analysis of at least three comparable properties that have the same illegal use. The lender also must make sure that the existence of the illegal additional unit will not jeopardize any future hazard insurance claim that might need to be filed for the property."
 
Last edited:
Such Fun.

Cynthia Hamilton said:
I'm voting with Hoppy - no check boxes checked to avoid confusion and a "see attached addenda" with lots of splaining in the addenda.

Thanks folks!
You mentioned the "two" legal units have been combined into one by opening a wall. You may find that although the reinstallation of the wall would be a simple matter, its removal may have removed the grandfathered status of the property as a duplex. Then again the basement may preserve it. I do hope you discussed the status with local zoning department (I am assuming you did.) So many possibilities with a property like this one, its unlikely the zoning officials can give a straight answer either. :shrug:
 
Greg Myers said:
I do hope you discussed the status with local zoning department (I am assuming you did.)

Nope - it's not my job to turn them in, just to find out what the zoning says. Also, for all of those advocating use of the word "illegal", I have to be very careful about using words like that, since I don't want to imply that I am giving a legal opinion. I'll let the city make those determinations if and when the find out about it and start looking into it.

My job is to say what's there and what the zoning is. The only way to get a real determination from zoning is to order another R-3, which costs a few beaver pelts and takes a few weeks. I'm not willing to take on the liability when they can get a determinatio from the source themselves.
 
There are lots of 2-, 3- and 4-unit buildings in Chicago. Some have living units in the basements. They are sometimes recognized as living units by the city and county, and are either legal or legal, non-conforming, depending on the zoning. Those properties with living units not recognized by city or county are illegal.

But...here's what some appraisers in Chicago do: they'll call the illegal basement unit an "in-law" apartment or a finished basement and identify the property as legal or legal, non-conforming. Why? They don't want to upset their clients. They reason that a finished basement is a finished basement, so what if it also has a range, sink and bathroom. It makes some sense, because many of the buildings do have finished basements intended for common use or for use by an owner-occupant of the building. Also, many single-family or multi-family buildings have finished basements with summer-kitchens and full bathrooms.

So, what's the right thing to do? Maybe it depends.
 
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