Obligation To Take Future Offsite Conditions Into Account

[Meandering]

Well, In other words, if the claim is that the appraiser should have known, then the buyer, sellers and the agents should have known as well.

that is true,
but one of the reasons I posted the new PA laws early in the thread was that,

since '08 there have been many projects approved in planning offices that did not get built because of financing issues. So a few years of being approved, nothing got built, finally lending loosened up, and new permits have to issued to build once the old ones expire.

This has been a terrible decade for new construction in the northeast. Just because there were approvals didn't mean everything got built, and after being approved of a few years and no one breaks ground.....how can you then claim, well, the appraiser should have known it was approved and might eventually get built.

Buyers have constructive notice that they don't "own the view" when they get the dimensions of their lot lines. There is never any expectation that ANYONE will preserve views for anyone else. If the buyer valued the view so highly when he bought the property, he needed to buy all properties between him and the view to protect it. Otherwise,

caveat emptor.

.

 

[BarrySW1963]

....Buyers have constructive notice that they don't "own the view" when they get the dimensions of their lot lines. There is never any expectation that ANYONE will preserve views for anyone else. If the buyer valued the view so highly when he bought the property, he needed to buy all properties between him and the view to protect it. Otherwise,

caveat emptor..

Yes. This should have been post #1 (removed: and wrapped the thread), and led first to the gathering of sufficient factual information necessary to render an informed opinion of the extent of the appraiser's obligations in this specific instance.

 

[Howard Klahr]

This should have been post #1 and wrapped the thread.

You can lead a horse to water ...
Its clear you still do not understand the issues

 

[BarrySW1963]

You can lead a horse to water ...
Its clear you still do not understand the issues

I understand that someone is looking to sue an appraiser for their own decision to buy a property that had a view as of the effective date that later lost the views due to the construction of a building that obstructed the view.

I understand that the original question posed was short on factual data, diagrams, maps and other information that would assist in answering the question that was posed. I also see that assumptions were made about the proximity of the subject to the condo parcel.

I understand your position and to a degree I even agree. However, what do you believe is the obligation of an appraiser to investigate to at least some degree adjoining vacant property when doing a residential appraisal? Clearly the appraiser would be aware if the zoning of an adjacent parcel was different than that of the subject property. If so, would the appraiser not be inclined to analyze the effect, if any, of being adjacent to something?

Where did OP state the parcel was adjoining?

.... "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.

Note that he didn't say "for the adjacent parcel". He said for the "space between the house and the mountain"!

I just get tired of the arm chair reviewers without any access to regulations, or knowledge of differing state SOP, making comments about what the appraiser should or should not have done. It's a witch hunt and the lemmings fall right in line.

Me, too.

 

[Howard Klahr]

Note that he didn't say "for the adjacent parcel"

Note I wasn't conversing with the OP.

Me, too.

My previous comment still stands

 

[bodenstein]

While I can appreciate you trying to help an attorney you work with,

I believe you are leaving with the wrong understanding;

While it's not entirely clear cut, this seems to boil down to the fact that the appraiser should definitely have reported the pending development if he knew of it, and that there might be issues of competency if he didn't know it, but reasonably should have been expected to discover it in the course of his due diligence.

This is not correct.
As it misses the reason this thread has gone 8 pages.

Even if the appraiser KNEW about a pending development. There isn't any obligation to report it, unless the development would impact value or marketability of the subject, in the mind of the ORIGINAL APPRAISER.

In a mixed use neighborhood with other apartments and SFRs, there is no obligation to individually report any and all new planned development of SFRs or apartments.

You need the facts before you can answer the attorney's question correctly.

Off the cuff generalizations do nothing to help you, the attorney, the homeowner, nor the appraiser that is going to get sued.

Competency is a different issue, which I would not try to determine based on this singular question.

Unless of course you are reviewing the OA and then you should have all the details.

.

I believe the original premise makes clear that the development impacts value and marketability, no?

 

[BarrySW1963]

I believe the original premise makes clear that the development impacts value and marketability, no?

I'm reminded of the caution that is given in statistics classes, or any class that discusses how to design questions for a study, in order for the study to have credibility.

In order for the results of the study to be reliable, the questions need to be presented without bias, and worded in such a way as to avoiding leading the respondents towards a particular conclusion or response.

 

[Meandering]

I believe the original premise makes clear that the development impacts value and marketability, no?

Lets review that original premise.

Reading, reading, reading,

Nope, no data or analysis concerning marketability or value,

Only an owner complaining about a view.

And ghee,

No information concerning what the owner did to protect that view, or accept the lack thereof, while under construction.


Oh,
and let me point this out.

Most large condo type multi-story buildings built in NE NJ, require blasting the bedrock to get to a place where the foundation can be set.

So,

beep, beep, beep, BOOM, walls crack.

Next day,

beep, beep, beep, BOOM, things fall from shelves.

Next day,

beep, beep, beep BOOM, dog is already under the bed and whining at the first beep.

and did nothing until the building was up, and now..........????????? Problems paying the mortgage????????

Caveat emptor.

But the owner still had an expectation of action to protect their value, and had not just constructive notice with construction signs going up, but actual CONSTRUCTION notice to sell out. But they didn't. they stayed, so golly ghee, could it possibly be that there was no value in the view, but rather the value was in the location and is the reason the buyer did not move away?

I would have a field day with this.

.

.

 

[bodenstein]

Lets review that original premise.

Reading, reading, reading,

Nope, no data or analysis concerning marketability or value,

Only an owner complaining about a view.

And ghee,

No information concerning what the owner did to protect that view, or accept the lack thereof, while under construction.


Oh,
and let me point this out.

Most large condo type multi-story buildings built in NE NJ, require blasting the bedrock to get to a place where the foundation can be set.

So,

beep, beep, beep, BOOM, walls crack.

Next day,

beep, beep, beep, BOOM, things fall from shelves.

Next day,

beep, beep, beep BOOM, dog is already under the bed and whining at the first beep.

and did nothing until the building was up, and now..........????????? Problems paying the mortgage????????

Caveat emptor.

But the owner still had an expectation of action to protect their value, and had not just constructive notice with construction signs going up, but actual CONSTRUCTION notice to sell out. But they didn't. they stayed, so golly ghee, could it possibly be that there was no value in the view, but rather the value was in the location and is the reason the buyer did not move away?

I would have a field day with this.

.

.

To be clear - I just posted the situation as presented by the attorney. You'll note the body of the post is in quotes, because that was just cut and pasted directly from the email we received. I did not imply there was data or analysis relating to marketability or value - that the value was adversely impacted by the obstruction of the scenic view forms the very basis for the issue at hand. It's an underlying assumption.that frames the question. There's also nothing relating to a mortgage here. My assumption is that the buyer is contemplating legal action and fishing for a potentially liable party in the hopes of recovering some of the value lost due to the adverse impact on view. I think you are very probably correct that he doesn't have much of a case. Thanks again.