Kindly refer to the prior City PDF post above. With respect to your incorrect assertion above- considerations:
1. the "unpermitted" apparent living area existed as of the EDA. When it was finished is, at present, unknown.
2. from the discussion so far, such Lower Level finished levels are common in similar style local homes in the subject's neighborhood and sub-market.
3. as such, the market apparently perceives this improvement as above grade GLA ( see OP post re an unfinished basement below the "lower level"). In the absence of posted photos of the "lower level" (front, side and rear views), we are unable to confirm whether any part of the lower level is below grade.
4. Assuming the market perceives the "lower level" as GLA IF a substantial portion of it is above grade - that improvement must have been confirmed as either a legal, a legal-nonconforming, or illegal use as of the Effective Date of Appraisal to develop a credible opinion of the Highest and Best Use which must be legally permissible.
5. IF confirmation research was conducted re the "Permit" and the result was inconclusive, IMO, the property's estimated Market Value opinion should have included the "lower level" in GLA based on an Extraordinary Assumption that a "permit" establishing Legal, or Legal Non-conforming Use existed as of the EDA and subject to requisite Municipal Compliance.
6. IF confirmation research clearly demonstrated a "permit" (or certificate of occupancy to close out a building permit) was required by the City (apparently the case in this instance), and NO "permit" or C.O. for the lower level existed BUT market acceptance for the improvement was unmistakable then, IMO, the Appraised Value should have been developed including the "lower level" in GLA under an appropriate Hypothetical Condition that a BP/CO existed and subject to same.
7. The site, as-improved on the EDA WAS either Legal, Legal Nonconforming, or Illegal.
