re: Lakefront vs Waterfront

[FMV]

Hey AF-
I have a LAND appraisal I am completing and just curious of other opinions on this.
The lot has a gradual slope, it is located in a cul-de-sac and from the street (since we have gotten very little rain in Texas) you can just see all the trees, but when you walk towards the middle of the lot-(down the slope) YOU CAN SEE THE "lakeview/or waterview". Per the survey, the lot goes right up to the lake in a tiny cove area-(triangle lot per survey). Would this be considered waterfront?? Or just Lakefront?? I am thinking more just "Lakefront".
Any thoughts? I have a comp around the corner that the lot backs right up to the lake next to the shoreline with no trees and feel that is more considered "WATERFRONT".

 

[residentialguy]

Labels don't have value. Call it what you want. I've never used the term waterfront - wth does that even mean??? Sounds like someone calling a hot dog a tube steak to make it sound better. It's either a lake, stream, river, channel, pond, bay, etc. Call it what it is and adjust for the contributory value of the differences. A pond might have more value than some lakefronts.

 

[Stone]

Unless there is some very specific local terminology I'm not understanding, you are on the wrong track here. They both have frontage on the lake, correct? Or, does one not actually front the lake? Use whatever terminology you like, but as I understand your post,they both have frontage.

You can certainly deal with the quality of the frontages as markets typically recognize different types (quality and function are typically more important than the old front foot difference) but I wouldn't claim that one has frontage while the other doesn't unless that is actually the case. If so, and this doesn't sound like what you are describing, are the properties actually comparable as one only has a water view?

It sounds to me like you simply have some quality differences in the views and possibly the utility. So, deal with the quality of the frontage and the views afforded each lot, but if they both have frontage they both have frontage. You are asking for all sorts of second guessing if you label the frontages differently while they both have the same legal access to the water.

 

[J Grant]

Use the best terms you can. For full frontage on the lake, write lakefront, full, for a lot with only a small portion of land along water, write lakefront/limited.

Sometimes one can use actual front feet and make adjustments: WF 120, comp one, WF 60 comp 2. If lake frontage is a high value item in the comparative sites may want to apply a waterfront feet per running foot adjustment.

 

[Michigander]

Lake front values are dependent on far more than front footage. Think quality of the frontage, slope to the lake, direction the property faces, the lake attributes (most lakes are not even as far as where the sand is and where weeds are, etc.).

As to the OP, what is customary in your area? In mine, water front usually refers to a pond or something without prime value, whereas lake front refers to the properties ON the lake.

 

[J Grant]

Agree, lake or other water frontage can have many influences beyond ff, though that can be an expression of comparison.

 

[Elliott]

LakeVw; LakeFrtVw; DistLakeVw;

"water" sounds funny.

 

[RSW]

I would call it lake front and then determine if it is dockable or not. That is a big selling point for lake front properties in East Tennessee.

 

[DMZwerg]

Lake front values are dependent on far more than front footage. Think quality of the frontage, slope to the lake, direction the property faces, the lake attributes (most lakes are not even as far as where the sand is and where weeds are, etc.).

As to the OP, what is customary in your area? In mine, water front usually refers to a pond or something without prime value, whereas lake front refers to the properties ON the lake.

Around here we see differences between a sunset view (preferred) and sunrise view (eh) so eastern side of local lake typically sell for more than western side, and north or south side depending on how much of a sunset view they get.

Then there are "degrees of view" both from the dwelling and from the practical edge of the property (some have hundred feet or so of bog, so view is not so great).

Then there is slope, water depth, yada yada yada.

Then there is actually feet of water frontage. A canal property typically has no view but still has the feet of frontage whereas a property across a road from the water may have no actual frontage but may have the view (and sometimes water rights, such as a slip on the dock).

Waterfront properties are complex assignments for most appraisers so do due diligence and become competent. I hope my post (and Michigander's above) helped some.

 

[Peter LeQuire]

RSW's comments are right on. Other factors include: fluctuations in lake levels (since virtually all our lakes are TVA or Corps of Engineers impoundments), main channel or cove, restrictions on structures at the waterfront, restrictions on management of vegetation, etc.