PUD or Condo

[TC]

Like I wrote earlier, we have very few Condo Developments in this region. It seems to me, after trying to fill in the 1075 in vain, that it should be worth at least 100-200 more clamshells than the 2055 or 1004URAR.

I find doing condos/PUDs to be much easier than detached SF. There is always a ton of info and people to contact to obtain that info. And once you appraise one condo in a plan, the next one is like stealing candy.

TC

 

[Laughing Heir]

We stood our ground and after a couple of weeks the client's title company provided the same deed we provided in the beginning - the verdict...

PUD! Thanks again to everyone for their valuable input so that I didn't have to learn this lesson the hard way!

 

[Pamela Crowley (Florida)]

The 1073 has numerous sections that just don't apply to a site condo and lacks any place to describe the site. The 1004 does a much better job of facilitating the description of a stand alone condo building. The software vendors (at least Bradford and a la mode) have taken the "relatively concise" part of the 1073 that contains the project information and placed it on a one page addendum to be used with the 1004.

A 1004 with Condo Addendum gives a much clearer picture of the property, IMHO. It takes quite a bit of narrative in an addendum to a 1073 to do the same job and avoid a misleading report.

Absolutely! Site condos are by far much better on a 1004 with the condo addendum.

 

[Shahab Malik]

I now have a problem where I think it's a detached Condo, but the lender insists it's a PUD. I have done it on the Condo form, but they want it on the 1004.
The legal shows partial interest, but the plat shows a seperate lot for each of the sites the homes sit on (There are 22 homes in this development). The legal states: Tr 5XXXX Lot 1 Unit 1 An U Nd 1/22 Int In Lot XX (I have x'd out the actual numbers).
The zoning description says SFR, but there are many condo developments in southern california that I have come across that shows SFR in the description when it is actually a Condo.
Is this thing a PUD or Condo??????

 

[Couch Potato]

Read post #33. Go ahead and use a 1004 and put in a condo addendum if you're sure it's a condo.

 

[Laughing Heir]

Sure enough, a new problem. Shortly after delivering the appraisal report an e-mail is generated by the client requesting site value for a townhouse.

How in the world could 0.02 acres with those types of restrictions have a more than nominal value to a typical market participant? Allocation seems the most appropriate way of tackling this, if there is any. This is a suburban to rural market area - typical lot sizes are half acre and up.

 

[Riick]

.
Funny how working out a cost approach can fill in gaps.
Hint Hint
.

 

[Bill Baughn]

First off, if you are doing a "driveby" on a condo, you don't want to use a 2055 form (that is old thinking). Use the 1075 form (regardless of how hard it is to fill out).

Easist way to determe whether it is a condo or SFR ownership is to look at the legal. Lot and tract makes it a SFR ownership. When they start talking about units, then you are looking at condos. It's that simple, I can't see why it takes three pages to figure this one out! As far as being a "townhouse", all that has to do is with the design of the home, like tudor or ranch. We had condos around here where the builder called them townhomes and 80% of the appraisers took that as meaning they were SFR's and not condos. Had they been intellegent enough to look at the legals, they would have known they were condos. But the RE agents insisted, stupid as they were. In order to be a townhouse, you can have no units above or below the units. It's that simple. You guys are making a mountain out of a molehill. As far as being a "PUD" goes, that basically has to do with common area ownership. Some puds don't have fees although most of them do.

 

[Bill Baughn]

Absolutely! Site condos are by far much better on a 1004 with the condo addendum.

Nothing like creating a misleading report doing a condo on a 1004 form...A condo is a condo regardless of what the structure looks like.

I bet you think it is better to get all detached SFR (non condos) for comps too?

 

[Laughing Heir]

Bill -

The client admitted that their initial research was faulty, confirmed with us that it was the development was subject PUD ownership and not Condo.

It was an exterior-only, they ordered it on a 1075. They re-ordered it on a 2055 Ext. We re-inspected over the weekend and completed the assignment.

Riick -

we have done an interior on two other townhouses in this PUD. I think we can safely assume that the basic quality of materials/workmanship in all units is similar because there is pretty tight pricing and this is below the median price for the market area.

The last res. class I took through the AI was the Res. Site Valuation & Cost Approach. Me thinks this is what your are alluding to. We can get a general idea for the dwelling, foundation, and garage. Then, we would solve for X and allocate that value to the site. The parts that trip me up are the site improvements and entrepreneurial incentive.

Am I on the right trail??

This is like the extraordinary assumption from hell!