Scope of work: 100% rebuild letter requested

[Mike Boyd]

These letters are typically only provided to the owner of record for the property. Just state what the city told you on the report and cite it as an EA on the addendum. I have 10 years time with three major banks that sell directly to Fannie and Freddie. The most they can request from you is to state what you just told us on the report. If they want the letter they can request it from the home owner or property seller if it is a purchase. Sounds like another over zealous underwriter.

I agree. I would never provide a rebuild letter. It is up to the owner to get that document.

 

[c w d]

I agree. I would never provide a rebuild letter. It is up to the owner to get that document.

I have to agree with Couch on this one. Egad! This is what I would term as a "value added service". So charge for the cost of the letter and your time to retrieve it. On the other hand, I know better than to bill a client. You'll never get reimbursed. Sorry Couch. I changed my mind. I'll have to agree with Mike on this one. :new_smile-l:

 

[Couch Potato]

I have to agree with Couch on this one. Egad! This is what I would term as a "value added service". So charge for the cost of the letter and your time to retrieve it. On the other hand, I know better than to bill a client. You'll never get reimbursed. Sorry Couch. I changed my mind. I'll have to agree with Mike on this one. :new_smile-l:

Glad you came to your senses.

The last client I had ask for a rebuild letter started the conversation by asking how much I would charge to get it for them. :new_smile-l: Since I always put a copy of the zoning regulation in the report for non-conforming properties, I rarely get a request for a rebuild letter.

 

[Mztk1]

I've already stated in the report - after verbally verifying with the building department - that the subject may not be able to be rebuilt to its current footprint if destroyed (it's legally non-conforming). According to the building department, nothing more definitive could be stated without a hearing.

What's legally non-conforming? Its use? Or its lot size?

Usually the footprint thing comes into play when the dwelling is a legal use for the zone but does not meet lot size or set back requirements.

I could be wrong, but Fannie seems to only speak about zoning and use. I see a lot of appraisals that state "R-50" and then under description it reads "Single Family Residential 50 X 100 min lot requirement", and the appraiser marks "Legal Non-Conforming" because the lot is undersized even though the use is legally a single family residence.

The way I read the guidelines, a SF use in a zoning that allows SFR would be a legal use whether it conforms to lot size requirements or not. It may be on a non-conforming lot, but that doesn't mean its use is illegal or legal non-conforming. Am I reading the guidelines wrong?

 

[timd354]

What's legally non-conforming? Its use? Or its lot size?

Usually the footprint thing comes into play when the dwelling is a legal use for the zone but does not meet lot size or set back requirements.

I could be wrong, but Fannie seems to only speak about zoning and use. I see a lot of appraisals that state "R-50" and then under description it reads "Single Family Residential 50 X 100 min lot requirement", and the appraiser marks "Legal Non-Conforming" because the lot is undersized even though the use is legally a single family residence.

The way I read the guidelines, a SF use in a zoning that allows SFR would be a legal use whether it conforms to lot size requirements or not. It may be on a non-conforming lot, but that doesn't mean its use is illegal or legal non-conforming. Am I reading the guidelines wrong?

The answer varies depending on how the particular zoning ordinance treats that situation. I suspect that some zoning codes woulod label that as a conforming use and some would label that as a non-conforming use.

 

[Mztk1]

In my area each zoning classification has a list of permitted uses. Lot size is not a use. Most agricultural zones will permit SFR, equestrian activity and a dog kennel business, but if the people are mining phosphate in the back yard, that would be a non-conforming use because phosphate mines are not allowed in the agricultural zones. I've inspected a single family property in a manufacturing zone and single family residences are an illegal use in manufacturing zones, and they are not allowed to be rebuilt if destroyed. I just did a 3 family house in a SF zone and the MF is an illegal use that cannot be rebuilt per the town. The distinction is very clear between the difference between an illegal use and an undersized lot.

I used to always consider an undersized residential lot in a residential zone to be a non-conforming property. But after looking into a bit and reading Fannie, I believe I was wrong about it and that we are not expected to be THAT technical on the matter. I really think all Fannie is concerned about is whether the use is conforming and not whether lot size is.

 

[Caterina Platt]

I agree. I would never provide a rebuild letter. It is up to the owner to get that document.

:new_multi:Hooray! Mike and I agree on a customer service/scope issue for a change.

I have another thought to add. Assuming the non-conforming use could not be recreated, and the insurance proceeds went to build a conforming property, would the value of the hypothetical new dwelling be equivalent or greater than today's value/use?

 

[Lobo Fan]

I have zoning departments that claim to have never heard of a rebuild letter and act astonished when I have requested one. I have never actually furnished one though I have been asked a few times. It is becoming more frequent as I have been much more diligent about verifying permit status on additions/conversions. In spite of myself, I have become reasonably familiar with zoning and building codes.

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

1) Not that anybody on the Forum cares, but a CA OREA appraiser told me that the re-build is an integral component of the residential Scope of Work, although that does not preclude an enhanced fee to obtain it. I would rather include the letter than base this critical comment on the planner's verbal statement.

2) Jim's point about lot size is very well put. Lots that are smaller than the current legal minimum almost inevitably pertain to efforts subsequently to subdivide; and are "legal conforming with smaller than required lots." However, there is no way to know without asking and/or reviewing the general plan standards.

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

Cat: Would insurance replacement cost be forthcoming if the building could not be re-built? The answer to this might also apply to the permit-versus-nonpermit controversy...