No box for the situation

[Mike Boyd]

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."

I agree. Additionally, even the gov. loses things. It may have been permitted in a very informal way many years ago. As appraisers, we should NOT call something illegal unless we have hard evidence that it is. That absence of a document will not convict anyone of anything. I would check legal, non-conforming and then explain. Maybe use an asterick instead of a check mark or X.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

Due diligence has not been completed on this assignment to mark "illegal" within zoning. Nor requesting a means of remedying the situation that "may or may not" exist.
Finally .. I dont read anywhere in his posts that this was Los Alamos County .. perhaps I just missed it.

I agree; due diligence had also not been completed to market "LEGAL" .......or "LEGAL, NON-CONFORMING" .........either.
:icon_idea:

The remedy existed in the Code posted.

 

[PropertyEconomics]

I agree; due diligence had also not been completed to market "LEGAL" .......or "LEGAL, NON-CONFORMING" .........either.
:icon_idea:

The remedy existed in the Code posted.

But was the property is Los Alamos County??????
Knowing how things are handled here, merely reading a document will not give you geographical competence ... knowing NO building has ever been required to be torn down ...

 

[Mike Kennedy]

PE - check yur private msgs.

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

I'm confused (again/still) about the client instructions concerning the treatment of additions, or modifications of unknown origin.

Every thread that pertains to this subject (including FHA threads) includes numerous posts that advise the appraiser to defer to the client's instructions.

Isn't the appraiser solely responsible for determining the appropriate SOW regardless of what the client wants or needs?

 

[Randolph Kinney]

I'm confused (again/still) about the client instructions concerning the treatment of additions, or modifications of unknown origin.

Every thread that pertains to this subject (including FHA threads) includes numerous posts that advise the appraiser to defer to the client's instructions.

Isn't the appraiser solely responsible for determining the appropriate SOW regardless of what the client wants or needs?

SOW is not something that is solely the appraiser's purview and decided upon in a vacuum absent any inputs from the client. It has to also meet the client's guidelines for the intended use. If the SOW that the appraiser comes up with can't meet the client's guidelines, then you should turn the assignment down; do not accept it to start with. SOW is agreed upon at the start or acceptance of the appraisal assignment, not the end of it.

 

[Mary Tiernan]

Please read the Scope of Work rule where it states the scope may be revised throughout the assignment.

It is not fully determined at the beginning of the assignment, it may change.

For instance, I receive an order for a 1004. Observation reveals a HUD manufactured. I have already set my scope for a 1004 assignment, I am not going to proceed on a 1004 - my scope of work has changed and my client's input is required.

What I don't understand is why the issue is not taken up with the client - explain the situation with the client, tell them the options and what needs to be done for each step - if a copy of the permit is presented to appraiser, then I can mark it legal, if no permit is presented, I have to mark it as legal, non-conforming. This puts the ball in the lender's/borrower's court.

 

[Tim Hicks (Texas)]

You do notice they put "generally" in there just to muddy the waters for us appraisers, don't you?

 

[Lobo Fan]

I was under the impression from earlier discussions on non-permitted additions that no permit meant an illegal use. Now I am reading that there may be some discretion in the application of this rule. I guess discussion with the government agency involved was not enough research, and I should try and discover who built the place and ask them for a copy of a permit the county says does not exist.

In the past I have used some discretion, just explaining the situation. I have an e-mail into the client seeking their input. I will advise when I hear something. (Or more correctly, read something).

 

[PropertyEconomics]

I was under the impression from earlier discussions on non-permitted additions that no permit meant an illegal use. Now I am reading that there may be some discretion in the application of this rule. I guess discussion with the government agency involved was not enough research, and I should try and discover who built the place and ask them for a copy of a permit the county says does not exist.

In the past I have used some discretion, just explaining the situation. I have an e-mail into the client seeking their input. I will advise when I hear something. (Or more correctly, read something).

Lobo .. let me ask you a question or two. WHAT IF .. there is in fact a permit but it is lost? WHAT IF ... the property has a CO?
Would such things not show that there is in fact a permit but you simply dont have a copy of it?
I think there is a large difference between saying NO that property wasnt permitted to saying we CANT FIND the permit.

The devil lies in the details.

PS .. for what its worth .. I thought you said in an earlier post you had sent the report off????