We agree with the liability issue, but look again at the op.
An attorney that we work with on occasion asked my associate the following question, and I'd appreciate your thoughts and input:
"I have a potential case where the home purchased had a panoramic view of a mountain. There was a big condo development planned for the space between the house and the mountain that was not yet started at the time the home was purchased. After purchase, the condo building is built, my clients entire view is destroyed, they now stare at the back of the condo complex, house is worth far less.
I don't know your experience in NJ, but I can tell you, the "mountains" are in the north and west of the state, which, I am EXTREMLY familiar with.
So, being that the mountains in NJ are not particularly tall mountains, as they are in more recent mountains chains, like the Rockies, it is impossible to get a PANORAMIC view of the mountains, unless you are on top, or far away from the mountain you are seeing. You won't have a panoramic view if the mountain is in the back yard of the house behind yours.
So, we establish there is some distance between the subject and the mountain they are viewing.
Now, more geo-relevant stuff. The further east you go in Northern NJ, the smaller the townships get. Which begs the question if the mountain in question is even in the same township as the subject. That and,
We were not provided the number of stories in this condo building that is now blocking the view. If the condo building is a single story and built on the lot behind the subject, it could be blocking the view. If the condo building is 10+ stories and we assume it is at the same elevation as the subject, we could use Glenn's triangulation to determine how far away from the subject the condo complex is, it might even be in a different township. But other than the east face of Garrett Mountain, which was mined off, there aren't any other mountains in NJ that have a steep cliff face, that I can think of off the top of my head.
So,
Land tends to elevate the closer it gets to a mountain. If the condo complex was built closer to the mountain than the subject property, yet at a higher elevation than the subject property, it would still "block the view" from the subject property. But because of elevation, the distance will be increased, for those properties that are impacted by the sight of it, and again, runs a good chance of being in a different township.
So while some comments might be relevant about what the appraiser should and should not include and write in a report, the original statements did not lend themselves to understanding if any of those statements were valid, as NO APPRAISER hired for lending will check the planning office for proposed construction more than a few blocks from a subject. Those blanket statements made about what appraisers "should do" were enticed to provide a desired result, which has some kind of connotation in the statistical survey vernacular, which we won't get into, other than to say, pile on of the lemmings.
.
community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.
).