My first 2000 One-Unit Residential Appraisal Field Review Report. Well, unless I decline it.

[cdanj]

So many questions. The lot land area is correct, however the lot dimensions the prior appraiser stated do not match what the assessor's map shows. They are similar. The assessor's map doesn't even have all the dimensions. He has added that assessor's map to the report. I can only assume that he got the those dimensions from a survey or a prior appraisal. I
I feel like saying that "the information is complete and accurate. All data and the lot area are correct, however the dimensions do not match the dimensions on the tax assessor's map, which is actually incomplete. The lot has many sides and angles and the exacting and minute dimensions stated by the prior appraiser lead this appraiser to make the extraordinary assumption that the data were taken from a survey." However, the usual caveat does not seem to apply in this case, because it's really a function of lot area. So... I know I wouldn't say this, But I would like to say "If assumption is incorrect the accuracy of this report will likely be unaffected because the size of the lot has the most affect on value. "

 

[glenn walker]

Focus on value-now and be done

 

[Kitarkus]

So many questions. The lot land area is correct, however the lot dimensions the prior appraiser stated do not match what the assessor's map shows. They are similar. The assessor's map doesn't even have all the dimensions. He has added that assessor's map to the report. I can only assume that he got the those dimensions from a survey or a prior appraisal. I
I feel like saying that "the information is complete and accurate. All data and the lot area are correct, however the dimensions do not match the dimensions on the tax assessor's map, which is actually incomplete. The lot has many sides and angles and the exacting and minute dimensions stated by the prior appraiser lead this appraiser to make the extraordinary assumption that the data were taken from a survey." However, the usual caveat does not seem to apply in this case, because it's really a function of lot area. So... I know I wouldn't say this, But I would like to say "If assumption is incorrect the accuracy of this report will likely be unaffected because the size of the lot has the most affect on value. "

I've done a lot of these. Some items such as lot dimensions....or site area....may differ slightly whether looking at the County data maps vs. the City data maps etc. So be careful before you judge those modest nuances too harshly. Wrong is wrong....and if you can't corroborate those dimensions...simply check "no" and explain succinctly.

Most importantly....remain logical and data driven throughout the Report. Find a discrepancy?....check "no" point it out....and corroborate via facts. Keep it short/simple when possible.
Many reports get the minutia wrong but the conclusions are still 'right'. You aren't there to judge....you are there to report.

 

[J Grant]

So many questions. The lot land area is correct, however the lot dimensions the prior appraiser stated do not match what the assessor's map shows. They are similar. The assessor's map doesn't even have all the dimensions. He has added that assessor's map to the report. I can only assume that he got the those dimensions from a survey or a prior appraisal. I
I feel like saying that "the information is complete and accurate. All data and the lot area are correct, however the dimensions do not match the dimensions on the tax assessor's map, which is actually incomplete. The lot has many sides and angles and the exacting and minute dimensions stated by the prior appraiser lead this appraiser to make the extraordinary assumption that the data were taken from a survey." However, the usual caveat does not seem to apply in this case, because it's really a function of lot area. So... I know I wouldn't say this, But I would like to say "If assumption is incorrect the accuracy of this report will likely be unaffected because the size of the lot has the most affect on value. "

Idk, you are getting hung up about minor discrepancies about an irregular shape lot ....is it a land appraisal or a house on a lot?

Getting so hung up about a discrepancy in lot dimensions when overall the data matches...idk what to advise wrt keep the assignment or not.-

I think for a review one must be even more competitive in the type of property and area than for an origination appraisal because a review can get reviewed too...we can't and should not focus on minor things that do not materially affect value. Mention it and move on to the other questions.

 

[Trihard]

Is the final valuation reasonable based on the characteristics of the property? If yes, then move on.

 

[Dublin ohio]

Seems like you have 2 source of the info (OA and assessor) Neither of which appears to be more reliable than the other. Explain and move on. If you say it is not accurate. What are you basing that on. Incomplete information?

 

[cdanj]

I've done a lot of these. Some items such as lot dimensions....or site area....may differ slightly whether looking at the County data maps vs. the City data maps etc. So be careful before you judge those modest nuances too harshly. Wrong is wrong....and if you can't corroborate those dimensions...simply check "no" and explain succinctly.

Most importantly....remain logical and data driven throughout the Report. Find a discrepancy?....check "no" point it out....and corroborate via facts. Keep it short/simple when possible.
Many reports get the minutia wrong but the conclusions are still 'right'. You aren't there to judge....you are there to report.

It doesn't affect the value, but the whole is to scrutinize. Would I just say "Site information is complete and accurate. The lot size is correct, however lot dimensions vary slightly from those on the tax assessor's map." End of story?

 

[alebrewer]

I don't disagree with Glenn too often - at least as it relates to appraisal related topics - but I do disagree about just focusing on value. Your job as a reviewer is to point out discrepancies in each section of the report, then to allow the client to determine whether those discrepancies affect their risk tolerance. As to the value, the 2000 is pretty straightforward on that - if you agree, check the Yes box at the bottom of Page 1 and Page 2 (for the most part) remains blank. Check the 'No' box at the bottom of Page 1 and you will be required to complete page 2. Remember - for ALL reviews - you're reviewing the document, not the appraiser.

 

[cdanj]

Seems like you have 2 source of the info (OA and assessor) Neither of which appears to be more reliable than the other. Explain and move on. If you say it is not accurate. What are you basing that on. Incomplete information?

I basically said Site info complete and accurate. Lot size correct, however lot dimensions vary slightly from tax assessor's map." Then I sited my sources and left it at that. I suppose they might kick it back and ask for clarity on if it affected value, but I'll address that if it happens.

 

[cdanj]

I don't disagree with Glenn too often - at least as it relates to appraisal related topics - but I do disagree about just focusing on value. Your job as a reviewer is to point out discrepancies in each section of the report, then to allow the client to determine whether those discrepancies affect their risk tolerance. As to the value, the 2000 is pretty straightforward on that - if you agree, check the Yes box at the bottom of Page 1 and Page 2 (for the most part) remains blank. Check the 'No' box at the bottom of Page 1 and you will be required to complete page 2. Remember - for ALL reviews - you're reviewing the document, not the appraiser.

So, far I disagree with a several things, but it may be the case that when I get to searching it makes sense. I do feel I need to bracket the condition. It may not affect the value. We shall see.