No Permit Pulled for GLA Addition

[Mike Garrett RAA]

Reject the assignment, tell the lender the property has no value. Report the home owner to the permit police and recommend execution!

 

[CANative]

An encroachment is not an illegal use but is just an encroachment. Encroachments are cured by the granting of a variance or modification/demolition to eliminate the encroachment. If the use was illegal it would not be permitted to remain.

Or in the "assignment" I just completed last night, a boundary line adjustment.

Howard, I didn't do a good job communicating my thoughts in that post.

Edit... Wait a minute. A structure which enroaches onto the adjacent property is as you say just an enroachment. A structure which was not built in according with building codes, i.e. over the set back, is not an enroachment. It is a structure which violates building codes... Illegal use.

BTW... my garage question was rhetorical.

 

[Mztk1]

A structure which was not built in according with building codes, i.e. over the set back, is not an enroachment. It is a structure which violates building codes... Illegal use.

BTW... my garage question was rhetorical.

I don't think it is Greg. An illegal use would be a manufacturing plant in your garage where zoning allowed only residential use. If the addition is residential and the zoning allows residential use, I think the use would be legal but zoning compliance would would be illegal due to non-conformance to set back requirements.

Another thing in my market on these non-permitted additions is year built of the original house. If the house pre-dates permit requirements (which are in the early 1980s for my markets), and it is feasible that the addition was built prior to the need for permits; or if the addition could feasibly have been built ealier than the current county records go back (in most of my markets records are purged after 15 years), then there is no way to determine if the addition is legal or not and it would be incumbant upon the town to prove the addition illegal, not the owner to prove it is legal. I am not the police nor a lawyer so in that case I simply state what I know, what I cannot know, and consider it living area unless proof is provided to the contrary.

If I have an area that I know was built without necessary permits and my scope of work is to appraise the property "as is" for lending purposes (1004), I will search the market for a sale that has a similar non-permitted addition and look to extract a value. I've never run into a situation where I couldn't find a market reaction, so I don't know what I'd do if that were the case.

 

[Howard Klahr]

I will search the market for a sale that has a similar non-permitted addition and look to extract a value. I've never run into a situation where I couldn't find a market reaction, so I don't know what I'd do if that were the case.

My earlier point was in order to determine market reaction, you would have to know if the non-permitted addition/conversion or whatever, was fully disclosed prior to the purchase. Just because a transaction occured does not equate to true "market reaction".

Greg - Building Codes are not equivalent to Zoning. Buildings/Improvements require permits, Zoning requires conformance. These are seperate and distinct parts of municpal code. Zoining regulates use (permitted use), building codes regulate the composition and design of improvements.

An encrochment would be a violation of zoning regulations resulting in a non-conforming improvment not use as Jim noted above

 

[Webbed Feet]

Reject the assignment, tell the lender the property has no value. Report the home owner to the permit police and recommend execution!

Finally! A reasonable man.

Webbed.

 

[Webbed Feet]

<.....snip.....>Edit... Wait a minute. A structure which enroaches onto the adjacent property is as you say just an enroachment. <....... snip.......>

That sure would be one really bad infestation. I'd call for a pest inspection myself!

Webbed.

 

[Webbed Feet]

<...... snip......>
My point is that there is no generic answer to these types of questions and merely "giving no value" or removing the area from the building sketch is non-sense.

I said something like that.

Webbed.

 

[Webbed Feet]

<......snip......>then there is no way to determine if the addition is legal or not and it would be incumbant upon the town to prove the addition illegal, not the owner to prove it is legal. I am not the police nor a lawyer <....snip......>

But you'll offer an opinion as to who has to prove what anyway.....



I just keep seeing all sorts of funny stuff in this thread is all.

Webbed.

 

[CANative]

Greg - Building Codes are not equivalent to Zoning. Buildings/Improvements require permits, Zoning requires conformance. These are seperate and distinct parts of municpal code. Zoining regulates use (permitted use), building codes regulate the composition and design of improvements.

*sigh

I'm working on three projects at the same time and have been ducking in and posting in a rapid fire sort of way. I know the above to be true and understand the idea. It's not really to the point I have been trying to make.

Many who post on the forum seem to be of the opinion that non-conformity equals "illegal." And that's just not the case.

 

[Mztk1]

But you'll offer an opinion as to who has to prove what anyway.....



I just keep seeing all sorts of funny stuff in this thread is all.

Webbed.

Well I know who has to prove it Duck, because it is determined in a court of law which means the defense is allowed due process and the burden of proof is on the accuser. You don't have to be a lawyer or a cop to know that the burden of proof in on the accuser, you just have to be a citizen who knows your rights.