Non-permitted 2nd unit?

[Fernando]

I rest my case. USPAP is confusing.
It needs to be clear for everyone (not just appraisers) to understand.

 

[TerryRohrer]

Why is there always appraisers that seem to believe their own nonsense so much that they are completely willing to hand out advice that could get other appraisers into serious binds with the appraisal licensing authority in their state? Extra "commentary," or narrative, that contravenes preprinted form language, especially on forms with a prohibition against changing them, happens to be a USPAP violation in many states. It results in an appraisal report that says contradicting things in different places in the report. The appraiser has now said "The sky is blue" and "The sky is not blue" both and signed those statements, inherently creating a misleading appraisal report.

There is at least as much bloviating in this post as in any that precede it. Are you then claiming that every FHA appraisal, and others, are in violation of USPAP because appraisers are required to add FHA as an intended user while the form prohibits it? While I agree it is better practice to point out the discrepancy and make clear your intentions, I suspect more don't than do. I suppose FHA could turn all those appraisers in for complying with assignment conditions in a manner that violated your sensibilities.

It is common, widely accepted practice to override form content when necessary and applicable (as opposed to doing so ignorantly). Consequently, there are no "rules" or "laws" against it as implied by your hyperbolic choice to invoke big words like "contravenes" without understanding their meaning.

 

[Tom D]

Would love to hear from the poster which way they went. And did it get thru.

Never understand why questions are asked and never the resolution given by any poster. Might learn something new.

 

[sputnam]

"USPAP is silent about forms. There is no prohibition against using the 1004 form for something like this... however, it's not a good idea. The built in statements and certifications on the 1004 would not really fit. In order to keep it correct, using the 1004 from would require a lot of extra commentary and it's highly likely that you'd miss something. Better off just using the GP form instead."

Why is there always appraisers that seem to believe their own nonsense so much that they are completely willing to hand out advice that could get other appraisers into serious binds with the appraisal licensing authority in their state? Extra "commentary," or narrative, that contravenes preprinted form language, especially on forms with a prohibition against changing them, happens to be a USPAP violation in many states. It results in an appraisal report that says contradicting things in different places in the report. The appraiser has now said "The sky is blue" and "The sky is not blue" both and signed those statements, inherently creating a misleading appraisal report.

It's not a USPAP violation. It might be prohibited by some state appraisal boards. Delivering a misleading appraisal report is a USPAP violation. As stated, using an inappropriate form increases the likelihood that an appraisal report will include misleading and/or contradictory language.

 

[sputnam]

I rest my case. USPAP is confusing.
It needs to be clear for everyone (not just appraisers) to understand.

I think it's very clear. It isn't easy. To understand USPAP you have to actually spend some time reading and thinking about it. Not just the USPAP document itself but also the AOs and FAQs.

Since USPAP is not binding on anyone except appraisers, there's no reason for non appraisers to understand it in the same way that is necessary for appraisers.

 

[Dublin ohio]

I find Fannie's loan terms to be good. For someone to get a FHA loan and pay PMI, those borrowers really NEED help.

FHA does not have PMI it has MIP

 

[alebrewer]

FHA does not have PMI it has MIP

Kinda doubt he has any idea what either of those are...

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

20 years ago around here, unpermitted ADU could have been reported by snitches and city would request it to remove it.
Since Progressive politicians at local and state levels have pushed for more housing in CA, all ADUs are acceptable. Instead of removal, city could request to build according to their local codes.

Ir's been a loooong time but I seem to recall that Pasadena, and maybe Redlands, require a city inspection of any residential property pending sale or LEASE, with any non-permitted or non-permissible improvement to be brought into compliance or removed prior to the consumation....