Well, to get into this game a little late, I think appraiser #2 was lazy. When I have two sources telling me two different lot sizes, it's time to go look up the deed and draw a plat. And I check the survey against the deed, if it was done after the deed was recorded. (Remember, both surveys and appraisals are *opinions,* and some surveyors are better than others. I've had surveys describe tracts as being 4.65 acres. <--that's "period!" not "more or less." When I plot the survey calls in a CAD program, not infrequently I get a survey that doesn't close, and which disagrees with other sources.
Without seeing the appraisal, of course, I can't express an opinion about the quality of the report. But I can smell a lazy so and so. If he was too lazy to resolve the lot size question, what other shortcuts did he take? Lot size is too easy to check for it to be neglected. This sort of discrepancy in a report sets my reviewer's radar on maximum sensitivity, and gets me to digging. I can well sympathize with Wes's concern about inaccurate statements of fact. That gets me going too.
Wes, lest you read this and decide to get on the warpath about it, my gripe is about the misstatement of lot size, not the value opinion difference. Frankly, the 4.72% difference in value opinions is well within the 5% range considered acceptable by relocation companies. And, from what I've read here, I don't think lot size alone would make a 5% difference in value in most cases. Still gets my hackles up, though, that an appraiser would be that lazy. "Fannie Mae requirement" indeed. Hmmmph.
