Plat Changed, is appraisal still valid?

[BRCJR]

So, let's hold up the subdivision development process until we can get, in this particular case, an Appraisal Report revised.

You probably will not get this back in an hour like you may for a reverse adjustment of a fireplace in the URAR.

Common sense must be used sometimes.

 

[Mark K]

I doubt that the lender will want a revised appraisal. Two more lots in the subdivision will be mostly profit. The infrastructure will cost about the same amount for 86 vs 88 lots making the extra two lots pure profit. I suspect the lender would be OK with this.

 

[Elliott]

I doubt that the lender will want a revised appraisal. Two more lots in the subdivision will be mostly profit. The infrastructure will cost about the same amount for 86 vs 88 lots making the extra two lots pure profit. I suspect the lender would be OK with this.

Original Value - Retail Value 2 Lots = Revised Value

 

[BRCJR]

Original Value - Retail Value 2 Lots = Revised Value

Technically, not true. Common sense it would be close.

 

[JTip]

I wonder who's money it is and what are their rules (pertaining to the appraisal, if any) for borrowing their money?

 

[sputnam]

You are still arguing about what is a lender decision from an appraiser's standpoint. No one is talking about blaming an appraiser or having them work for free.

I'm responding to an 'issue' raised by the OP in an APPRAISER'S FORUM. Doesn't make a lot of sense to ask in an appraiser's forum unless you want an appraiser's perspective. As an appraiser, I don't care if it's still valid or not. It isn't an appraisal issue. Why not ask expert and authoritative people in the lending industry?

 

[Mark K]

Original Value - Retail Value 2 Lots = Revised Value

Am I missing something? It seems that it should be: Original Value + Retail Value of 2 lots = Revised Value.

I'm also thinking it should be something akin to: '+ the avg. discounted future value of 2 lots' or something similar but for this discussion, we'll leave it at Retail value.

 

[Zoe]

Am I missing something? It seems that it should be: Original Value + Retail Value of 2 lots = Revised Value.

I'm also thinking it should be something akin to: '+ the avg. discounted future value of 2 lots' or something similar but for this discussion, we'll leave it at Retail value.

Yeah, all you do is develop an absorption rate, cap rate and discount the cash flow. You need the development cost estimates, but it is all discounted cash flow analysis on subdivision as if completed according to plans and specs. You hang your hat on income cap approach using discounted cash flow analysis. But two lots makes a difference to approved plans and specs and the discounted cash flow analysis. You develop the market value estimate on each lot and then discount the cash flow over the absorption time frame. (you have your opinion of market value).

 

[Zoe]

Plus, it appears the appraiser might not have known if the plat of the subdivision was legally permissible when they got the number of lots wrong because it seems the subdivision was not approved at the time of the appraisal.

 

[RSW]

I'm responding to an 'issue' raised by the OP in an APPRAISER'S FORUM. Doesn't make a lot of sense to ask in an appraiser's forum unless you want an appraiser's perspective. As an appraiser, I don't care if it's still valid or not. It isn't an appraisal issue. Why not ask expert and authoritative people in the lending industry?

BJCR is a lender.