No box for the situation

[Wendy]

So if they had pulled a permit, building a MIL is legal - Correct? Well, then you have a legal, but un-permitted use. In that case, resolution would be to get it permitted. Somewhat costly and a real pita, but certainly doable in most places. If this is the case, I'd mark it legal, but put the un-permitted bit all over the report.

Your SOW depends on how you treat the un-permitted area and its impact on value. Goodness knows we've enough threads on that topic lately.

(Note - I'm making the assumption that the zoning does not allow a MIL to be rented, thereby ruling out the old 2-family vs. SFR argument).

 

[Wendy]

If it's all under one roof, it's a SFR with an in-law suite. No problems. If it's a separate unit, comment and disclose. You are not a lawyer or specialist in zoning. Let the title company deal with it.

Detached in-laws are allowable in many zonings in the areas I cover. Interesting that your area uses "one roof" as a test.

MILs & duplexes can be found in a number of "roof" configurations and still be legal here.

Most times around here, it's the inclusion of an oven in the MIL that is the kicker for zoning.

 

[The Warrior Monk]

Since the permit does not exist, the addition is not legal. Obtaining the proper permits and subsequent Certificate of Compliance/Occupancy is part of making the use legal. Special permits (known as special exception permits here) do not necessarily have to be granted; the will depend on your zone code and how it is implemented and enforced. The intended user will often require the proper CO/CC before they will close the loan, especially in a case like this, where there are liability issues.

 

[JRS at OBX]

I agree with Lee. If I call the local zoning department to see if an illegal duplex is in fact illegal, they have to send the building inspector out....if I tell them the address.

I would leave both boxes unchecked and explain. I have the same problem with the foundation boxes. Most of our foundations are pilings and there is no check box for pilings. About once every two or three months I get an underwriter that will send me a stip to check a box. I have it explained in bold and underlined but they don't bother to read the report.

 

[c w d]

How do you know it's not legal non-conforming? Perhaps the zoning changed after the home and mil was built and was grandfathered? I'd look into this. If you mark illegal, which I've never had a reason to do so far thank you Jesus, it's probably going to open up a whole can of worms and put you in a world of UW sh$t.

If the MIL is illegal does that make the entire property illegal? I'd had to opine, no. After all the mil is a secondary unit. Perhaps you could approach it from the perspective that you're not giving the mil consideration in the appraisal because it is not legally permitted and develop your opinion of value as if it is not there?

I probably would not mark a property illegal for a non-permitted secondary structure. But, I would if it was a commercial enterprise in residential zoning or visa versa or if the main structure was not in compliance with current zoning in some way. I don't think you could classify it as legal non-conforming either if the secondary unit was built under the current zoning. The reason being is, in my experience and knowledge, that legal non-conforming is indicative of a grandfathered use; something allow at some point but the rules changed at a later point. I'd probably check legal and explain, explain, explain and not consider the mil if it was not permitted or grandfathered.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

Ilegal is as Illegal Does.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

Since the permit does not exist, the addition is not legal. Obtaining the proper permits and subsequent Certificate of Compliance/Occupancy is part of making the use legal. Special permits (known as special exception permits here) do not necessarily have to be granted; the will depend on your zone code and how it is implemented and enforced. The intended user will often require the proper CO/CC before they will close the loan, especially in a case like this, where there are liability issues.

Ditto. "legal but unpermitted is a pipe dream". When local Zoning Ordinance and/or Building Ordinance and/or COMBO Building & Zoning Ordinance (depending on the municipality) requires a BP and/or supplemental C.O.

Improvement exists - no bp nor c.o. exists - lack of same constitutes an Violation of Local Law i.e. an Illegal Improvement

 

[CANative]

Not necessarily.

Buildings don't violate laws because laws are written for people. People violate laws.

If you violate the local building laws and build an improvement which is a legal, permitted use the result is not an illegal use. And it's not necesarily an illegal improvement.

I've tried to pin down planning and building department officials including building inspectors. I'll say that a room addition was added to a residence on Main Street but there is no permit on file. Is the room addition illegal? Their answer is invariably "What makes you think it's illegal? They just need to get a permit if someone complains."

 

[The Warrior Monk]

In many jurisdictions, even in the case of a preexisting, nonconforming use, the property owner has to take the additional step of getting the proper Certificate of Occupancy/Compliance. Without it, the property owner might not be allowed to apply for any building permits, or be able to mortgage the property except through certain private lenders.

 

[Wendy]

I've come to the conclusion that there is no right answer to these type of situations. Ask a dozen people and you'll get a dozen answers.

Do what sits best with your gut and explain, explain, explain!!