Site Condo Dwelling - how to distinguish between Semi-Attached, Semi-Detached, or Detached?

[Joyce Potts]

Seriously, who cares whether it's attached or detached? Pick your poison, explain and move on.

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

Sorry to jump in late, but what is a "site condo"? Coincidentally a current lender wants that statement although I am inclined to advise that it is is indeed, a detached unit, like all others in the development, although the term "site condo{," per se, isn't recognized, and the client should refer to the legal description??????

But now that I took a moment to research the issue before opening my pie hole, I found a 2011 HUD "Condo Project Approval and Processing Guide," which defines the concept.

 

[MMing5000]

What difference does it make whether it's attached or detached, if it's legally zoned and the legal description makes it a site condo???

According to the Lender, if it is attached then Condo Form must be used, and if it is detached they want it on the URAR Form 1004.

 

[Carnivore]

According to the Lender, if it is attached then Condo Form must be used, and if it is detached they want it on the URAR Form 1004.

So this is interesting. A detached Condo has its own site. I assume the Site has its own dimensions delineating that site and also meaning the Site has its own Site Value and Tax Value for Tax Purposes and is included in the Tax bill as one and the subject has no other interest in the Condo Development.

I am trying to wrap my head around why anything like this would exist in the first place. What comes to mind is this is an end run around Zoning.

Just wondering. In my area I don't know of anything anything like this, but you never know.

 

[Joyce Potts]

The lender would be wrong, IMO. A condo is a condo, is a condo. lt's about legalities not the physical appearance or characteristics.

 

[Joyce Potts]

So this is interesting. A detached Condo has its own site. I assume the Site has its own dimensions delineating that site and also meaning the Site has its own Site Value and Tax Value for Tax Purposes and is included in the Tax bill as one and the subject has no other interest in the Condo Development.

I am trying to wrap my head around why anything like this would exist in the first place. What comes to mind is this is an end run around Zoning.

Just wondering. In my area I don't know of anything anything like this, but you never know.

A site condo does NOT OWN THE LAND UNDERNEATH. Get the physical assumptions out of your head and study up on the condo ownership concept of owning an UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN THE LAND and COMMON AMENITIES. The ONLY difference, in Florida in MOST cases, between a condo and a site condo are the physical improvements, i.e., attached vs. detached. It's a legal concept, not a physical concept.

 

[Mark K]

So this is interesting. A detached Condo has its own site. I assume the Site has its own dimensions delineating that site and also meaning the Site has its own Site Value and Tax Value for Tax Purposes and is included in the Tax bill as one and the subject has no other interest in the Condo Development.

I am trying to wrap my head around why anything like this would exist in the first place. What comes to mind is this is an end run around Zoning.

Just wondering. In my area I don't know of anything anything like this, but you never know.

In this area we have, what we call, site condos that are essentially free standing SFR on a communal site. You own the land under the building/unit but no more. There are also identical properties, in the same neighborhood, where the building/unit owner also owns a small site, usually about 50 x 100, +/-, that includes the building and associated improvements. One is condo, one is not. Buyers and most owners don't know the difference and don't care. They are all brick, about the same size, and they sell for the same $. The only difference is the 'wording on the deed'. One says "Lot #1" the other says "unit #1".

I wouldn't be surprised if the reasoning is density and zoning. R3 (for example) zoning might allow for an average of 4/acre and the condo zoning doesn't specify density. Owners don't care; they pay an HOA to cut grass, plow snow, etc. in both cases.

 

[Joyce Potts]

Even with commercial condo sites (I used to own an office building that was a site condo) you do NOT own the land underneath the improvements (footprint) either. You still own an UNDIVIDED interest with all the other owners. Now, in the absence of site condo comps can you use detached, SFR with fee simple ownership? I've done it.

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

So this is interesting. A detached Condo has its own site. I assume the Site has its own dimensions delineating that site and also meaning the Site has its own Site Value and Tax Value for Tax Purposes and is included in the Tax bill as one and the subject has no other interest in the Condo Development.

I am trying to wrap my head around why anything like this would exist in the first place. What comes to mind is this is an end run around Zoning.

Just wondering. In my area I don't know of anything anything like this, but you never know.

--------------
Granite Ridge, just north of the 60, in Jurupa Valley;
Rosena Place, integral to Rosena Ranch, south of the 15/215 intersection, in unincorporated San Berdou County.

Coincidentally I asked the Rosena Sales Offices why the builder devoted space to condos as an alternataive to the existing SFR's but nobody seems to know.

 

[glenn walker]

Subject is a ranch style (rectangular shape) "site condo dwelling" with a 10-feet wide covered breezeway/covered patio along the entire length of the dwelling, where the roof of a shared 2-car carport sits about 2-inches below the covered breezeway/covered patio (not touching). Technically the carport is not attached to either site condo dwellings, but in the report, so i prepared the report on the URAR, but i may have mistakenly called it "semi-detached" because the 2" roof clearance is pretty close to being attached.

The Underwriter came back and said:
"Based on the Declarations from the Association this subject property is not attached. Appraiser to either clarify and correct the current appraisal showing subject IS detached or the subject must be done on a 1073, if truly semi-attached."

My dilemma is whether to just re-label the dwelling as detached (from semi-detached) since the UW said "Based on the Declarations from the Association this subject property is not attached", or do i stay with "semi-detached" description and take a loss by re-doing the appraisal on the Condo 1073?

For further clarification, the property is listed as detached dwelling just as all other listing history of semi-attached dwellings listed in the MLS. The client wanted URAR 1004 for detached site condo properties as they usually does.

In the report i have stated:
the language of Real Estate appraisal defines a condominium as: "A multi-unit structure or property in which persons hold fee simple title to individual units and an individual interest in common areas", where in the condominium definition there is implied no subdivision of land, which is not applicable for detached site condo dwellings that do have subdivision of land.

Now the 1073 form is used unless lender says otherwise for a while years back they were letting use a 1004 but as I recall that's no longer the rule . Site condos are usually not attached and that's why there called site condos. Essentially the builder drops X-=Amount of homes on one parcel of land and they do not own the lot it sits on but in common with everyone else. It will look like a Fee simple house, smell like one and half the owners don't even know they don't own the land in fee. THE OWNERSHIP IS CONDOMINIUM-Think of it this way if it burned down the owner could not sell the individual lot to another party because he does not own it , but does have the right to rebuild it and is required to under the CC& Rs and HOA rules. I always get a copy of teh title report before I will even proceed on these because that will lay out everything much better than realist etc.