• 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.

Lender says give no vale to illegal accessory unit

Status
Not open for further replies.
Call your Local FHA/HUD HOC and get direction from the appraisal department. In my opinion you cannot just pretend the second unit (house) does not exist. And if you give it no value does that mean it has no utility or contributory value ? It also sounds like the lender is trying to get a loan funded when in reality it's probably a dead deal if you just report the (facts) : Remember nobody is going to fall on the sword if this deal goes south in the future : ) LOL
 
(my bold)

The second unit creates an illegal use (are you sure), or is the 2nd unit a non-permitted structure?
I suggest you look at Appendix D (4150.2), page D-19 under "Zoning Compliance".


But, the short answer to your question is this: The instruction to "just not give it value" is incorrect and I wouldn't follow it.

I agrre. Tell the lender to get a license if they want to do appraisals.
 
My dad called me Deanie when i was a kid. It was annoying.
 
Oh pulleeeze, PE. I can't stand this nonsense you posted.

They do too give value. They give (which means produce, indicate, show) value as a result of investigation or calculation.

Words have more than one meaning

IN the context as directed by the client, I fully support the reaction of P.E.
 
Call your Local FHA/HUD HOC and get direction from the appraisal department. In my opinion you cannot just pretend the second unit (house) does not exist. And if you give it no value does that mean it has no utility or contributory value ? It also sounds like the lender is trying to get a loan funded when in reality it's probably a dead deal if you just report the (facts) : Remember nobody is going to fall on the sword if this deal goes south in the future : ) LOL




Why not?

HUD/FHA are the minimal requirements that the lender and appraiser must meet. Lenders can require additional or more stringent guidelines or requirements that goes above and beyond HUD/FHA. Now I am not giving my advice or opinion as to if it contradicts FHA/HUD. He can research that for himself or call the HOC.

CO detectors are a good example.


Now is this a USPAP issue to anyone or a lender/secondary market/FHA issue?

For example:

Say I was making a hard money loan or a in-house loan or even a private loan to someone.

The subject has a legal SFR unit and a illegal de-tached accessory unit. The town says that it cannot be re-built.

Now, I am still willing to make the loan, but the accessory unit is to much of a risk. So I hire a professional real estate appraiser to appraise the subject property, but tell him not to give any value to the accessory unit. The borrower is OK with it, and as the private lender, I am OK with it. The borrower will come up with the difference, if any, for the accessory unit.

Now, is the above OK with USPAP? Why or why not?


Correct me if I am wrong, as I'm no longer appraising or keeping up with the ever changing guidelines:

1. FHA does not allow appraisers to give value to excess land. ***So why could not the appraiser of this thread do the same thing with the accessory unit????******
Will FHA insure properties with large acreage or excess land?

Excess land is defined as the area which is larger than what is a typical and readily marketable real estate entity in the neighborhood AND is capable of a separate use. Generally, the excess portion of land can be subdivided and marketed as an individual parcel. However, in small communities and outlying areas, appraisers must use different criteria because the market may accept a wide variance in lot sizes.

If the plot contains excess land, the appraiser should describe it but not value it. In this instance, the appraisal is based upon a hypothetical condition in which only the value of the readily marketable real estate entity is estimated. A legal description of the portion being appraised is required.

The lender will ensure that the entire property (including any excess land) will be encumbered with a mortgage and a note and that the maximum mortgage amount is calculated only on that portion of the subject property that represents a readily marketable real estate entity and does not reflect any additional value provided by the excess land.

Handbook 4150.2 REV1, Section 4-4 and 4-5A2
http://portal.HUD.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/administration/hudclips/handbooks/hsgh

 
Last edited:
Why not?

HUD/FHA are the minimal requirements that the lender and appraiser must meet. Lenders can require additional or more stringent guidelines or requirements that goes above and beyond HUD/FHA. Now I am not giving my advice or opinion as to if it contradicts FHA/HUD. He can research that for himself or call the HOC.

CO detectors are a good example.


Now is this a USPAP issue to anyone or a lender/secondary market/FHA issue?

For example:

Say I was making a hard money loan or a in-house loan or even a private loan to someone.

The subject has a legal SFR unit and a illegal de-tached accessory unit. The town says that it cannot be re-built.

Now, I am still willing to make the loan, but the accessory unit is to much of a risk. So I hire a professional real estate appraiser to appraise the subject property, but tell him not to give any value to the accessory unit. The borrower is OK with it, and as the private lender, I am OK with it. The borrower will come up with the difference, if any, for the accessory unit.


Now, is the above OK with USPAP? Why or why not?

Seems it would not be a USPAP issue in above example if the appraiser identified and then modified the propose and value definition to state that purpose is to provide client with a market value opinion that excludes any value of the AU.

Appraiser can not modify or change the MV definition pre printed in URAR form, but if this were a private loan done on non URAR form, then if definition were modified and identified, seems it would be USPAP compliant for intended user/use.
 
Seems it would not be a USPAP issue in above example if the appraiser identified and then modified the propose and value definition to state that purpose is to provide client with a market value opinion that excludes any value of the AU.

Appraiser can not modify or change the MV definition pre printed in URAR form, but if this were a private loan done on non URAR form, then if definition were modified and identified, seems it would be USPAP compliant for intended user/use.

Fair enough, but what about the below, since the poster is dealing with FHA/HUD?


Why not?

HUD/FHA are the minimal requirements that the lender and appraiser must meet. Lenders can require additional or more stringent guidelines or requirements that goes above and beyond HUD/FHA.

Correct me if I am wrong, as I'm no longer appraising or keeping up with the ever changing guidelines:

1. FHA does not allow appraisers to give value to excess land. ***So why could not the appraiser of this thread do the same thing with the accessory unit????******
Will FHA insure properties with large acreage or excess land?

Excess land is defined as the area which is larger than what is a typical and readily marketable real estate entity in the neighborhood AND is capable of a separate use. Generally, the excess portion of land can be subdivided and marketed as an individual parcel. However, in small communities and outlying areas, appraisers must use different criteria because the market may accept a wide variance in lot sizes.

If the plot contains excess land, the appraiser should describe it but not value it. In this instance, the appraisal is based upon a hypothetical condition in which only the value of the readily marketable real estate entity is estimated. A legal description of the portion being appraised is required.

The lender will ensure that the entire property (including any excess land) will be encumbered with a mortgage and a note and that the maximum mortgage amount is calculated only on that portion of the subject property that represents a readily marketable real estate entity and does not reflect any additional value provided by the excess land.

Handbook 4150.2 REV1, Section 4-4 and 4-5A2
http://portal.HUD.gov/hudportal/HUD?...handbooks/hsgh
 
Last edited:
I prefer how USDA handles "things" that they do not want to lend on.


http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/SupportDocuments/an4701.pdf


PURPOSE/INTENDED OUTCOME:
The purpose of this Administrative Notice (AN) is to clarify that in-ground swimming pools are permitted under the Single Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Program (SFHGLP) as long as loan funds are not used to finance the contributory value of the swimming pool.

COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS AN:
This AN replaces RD AN No. 4608 (1980-D), dated November 14, 2011, which expires on
November 30, 2012.


EXPIRATION DATE: FILING INSTRUCTIONS:
December 31, 2013 Preceding RD Instruction 1980-D
BACKGROUND:
7 CFR Part 1980, Subpart D (also known as RD Instruction 1980-D) at Section 1980.311(a)
(7), states “Conditional Commitments will not be issued if loan funds are to be used . . . [to]
purchase a dwelling with an in-ground swimming pool.”
In-ground swimming pools may or may not contribute value to a modest home. This AN
allows for properties with in-ground swimming pools to be guaranteed by the SFHGLP as
long as the contributory value of the swimming pool is not included in the guaranteed loan
amount.



IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITIES:
State Directors or their designees can approve the purchase of dwellings that include an inground
swimming pool as long as the contributory value of the swimming pool is not included in
the guaranteed loan amount. Such approval will not violate RD Instruction 1980-D, Section
1980.311(a) (7).
Appraisal Report
Typically, a swimming pool has contributory value and adjustments are made for comparable
sales that do not have swimming pools. It is possible for a swimming pool to not have a
contributory value. The appraiser should address this issue in the appraisal report. An appraiser
may not indicate that a swimming pool has no contributory value simply because “the loan is a
Rural Development guaranteed loan.” Under the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice, licensed or certified appraisers should address the swimming pool and its contributory
value relative to the market. For example, if the swimming pool has a torn lining, and is not
usable, the appraiser may conclude that it has no contributory value.
Maximum Loan Amount
Lenders and Rural Development should ensure that the contributory value of the in-ground
swimming pool is not included in the guaranteed loan amount. The net appraised value of the
property, plus any amount of the up-front guarantee fee financed, is the maximum loan amount
for which Rural Development will issue Form RD 1980-18, “Conditional Commitment for
Single Family Housing Loan Guarantee.” The contributory value of the swimming pool must
be deducted from the appraised value before computing the maximum loan amount.


Example: Assuming a $100,000 appraised value with a swimming pool for which the
contributory value is $10,000, the contributory value of the swimming pool would reduce the
maximum loan amount to $90,000. In this example the maximum loan amount must be
computed based on $90,000, in order to exclude the contributory value of the swimming pool
from the loan amount. The current up-front guarantee fee for purchase transactions is 2 percent,
an amount which can be included in the loan. The maximum loan amount in this scenario,
which includes financing of the entire up-front guarantee fee, would be $91,836.73.


Illustration
Step One – Calculate the Net Appraised Value (excludes contributory value of in-ground pool)
Appraised value $100,000
Contributory value of the in-ground swimming pool - $10,000
Net appraised value (less contributory value of pool) = $90,000
Step Two – Calculate the Maximum Loan Amount (including the entire 2 percent upfront fee in
the loan amount)
Net appraised value / (1 – decimal equivalent of upfront fee percent) = Max loan
amount
or
$90,000 / .98* = $91,836.73 maximum loan amount
 
In theory, the way the lender and appraiser can handle this is to appraise the property where the intended users is just the lender and not FHA. The lender could use the appraisal with the case # for the case file and keep the other appraisal for themselves. The off label appraisal is for purposes of setting an LTV that makes them comfortable.

But it's all moot if the improvements represent an illegal use because the property is ineligible for an FHA insured loan. That problem has to be solved before moving forward.
 
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