Square Footage Discrepancy

[Fanny Kutis]

We recently bought a new house in Texas. On the builder's sales advertisement, the square footage of the model we selected was 3994. When our blue print came out, the square footage became 3910. We pointed out this discrepancy and the builder gave us another blue print with square footage 3957. We disagreed since the figures still did not agree. They then gave us the third blue print with square footage 3994. Last week, the house was closed and we got an appraisal report from the mortgage company. The square footage on this report is 3919. We checked the county's appraisal records and our house's square footage there shows as 3888.

We feel we were cheated by the builder. What should we do now?

 

[Otis Key]

Welcome to the Forum Fanny and don't be surprised if this gets moved to the "Ask An Appraiser" section but there will be a link here.

I'm not an attorney, don't claim to be and don't want to be. Seek your attorney!

Edited for an after thought:

Also, is that square footage difference a significant enough factor for you to persue this? Could you really tell the difference? Have you contacted the TX AG about what appears to be a potential bait-n-switch problem?

 

[Jeff Horton]

I agree with Otis. But here is something else to consider. Appraisers measure the outside of the house to determine square footage. The plans typical are to the framed walls. So the two numbers will almost never agree.

In my state Appraisers have to measure to ANSI standards and that can cause some differences in square footage. These standard require different methods than what the draftsman used that did the plans. I used to be draftsman/designer in a previous life.

Also, you only talking roughly a 100 SF. I dare say you would never know the difference in that small an area on a house that size. If you paid for the house by the square foot then you might have a case. Otherwise I think you are probably wasting you time. But I don't know all the details either.

 

[Chris Colston]

Originally posted by Otis Key@Dec 30 2005, 09:38 AM
Welcome to the Forum Fanny and don't be surprised if this gets moved to the "Ask An Appraiser" section but there will be a link here.

Funny you say that Otis, just as I was pressing the MOVE button :lol:

Now to Fanny's question....How could the builder have 3 different sets of blue prints for one house? That right there would have sent up a few red flags.

Do you have a copy of the appraisal? Does it include a sketch? You might want to, for peace of mind and verification, measure the exterior of the house walls. Then see if those measurements concur with the appraiser. You then have a basis to question the builder AGAIN. Many times the builder will include areas UNDER ROOF such as porches and garages, these items are not living area but can be included in the total building area. Most builder's brochures are based on "typical" floor plans and will have a caveat that they are subject to change.

I still don't understand the 3 sets of blue prints, there should only be one set of plans for the house. Don't know about Texas, but here in the Florida, the inspectors have to sign off on the actual plans that pertain to THAT house.

 

[Mountain Man]

There is only 75 SqFt difference between what the builder's plans say, and what the appraisal says. On a house over 3000 sq ft, that is a TIGHT range (2%) and you can't build one any closer than that!! The difference can easily be the way the plans are measured (on center of the wall), vs exterior walls (ANSI Standards). Or it could simply be how one wall was moved slightly in framing. To sue, you will be tossing good money after bad. The legal fees will cost more than the value returned for a settlement, and I seriously doubt the market would recognize the difference.... IE: there is no way to prove damages.

We had an interesting discussion a few weeks ago about adjusting for square footage when the general market perception is "does this house fit my family and my stuff?". That post may help you understand why 75 sq ft probably doesn't make a difference.

Past Post Here.

 

[Ross (CO)]

Fanny,......the greatest differential spread between all numbers you have given I see as being only 84 sq.ft. For a house of this total size such is a modest amount. Get 5 more people to measure the house and you will get 5 different totals, guaranteed. Do you really feel you've been "cheated" ?.....3888 sf versus 3919 sf.....do you really feel you have to make an issue of this ?

I cannot explain why there are three different blueprint sets, but modifications and minor changes do occur and you might also note the (calendar) dating on those three sets too. I was told years ago that there is a tendency for builder size numbers to reflect the measurement of framed lengths of walls defining the perimeter BEFORE allowing the eventual selection and option of exterior siding material. The county assessor rep and any appraiser are usually likely to get a slightly larger amount of square footage as they measure around the home AFTER the siding has been installed.

If there is a basement, and it has a substantial element of finish, you might want to know if a more "exacting" % of that finish amount is represented in the records. Also, and of even greater importance, you might want to be sure that the formal recording of the actual "price" of just the house-and-total-property enters the county and (possible) MLS records accordingly. If there were any builder incentives, free upgrades and other things that may have been lumped-into their total transaction and thus give the house an appearance of having greater worth.......and then a year or so from now you go do a re-fi or an equity extraction......and another appraiser informs everyone that the "price" you paid was not the true price you paid. It does not serve you, nor other prospective house shoppers in your neighborhood, to have an "inflated" price get recorded in official places. The price you paid may not be the value you acquired in that purchase......and yet it might, as I do not know any more of the details. (And you thought you were possibly being deceived over the size of the house !)

 

[Randy Beigh]

the square footage of the model we selected was 3994.

This caught my attention. You selected a model. Was that before it was built, say from plans? Did you request any changes or was the house built to the exact same specs as the model you selected?

Intent comes into play with this sort of thing? Was the intent of the builder to deceive?

I also agree with everyone else. Does the few square feet affect your life?

 

[Walter Kirk]

A difference of less than 100 square feet on an almost 4000 square foot plan is insignifficant. As others have pointed out there are many possible explanations for
the difference. If the house that you were sold substantially matches the model or the plan that you contracted to buy you have nothing to complain about.

 

[Peter LeQuire]

I agree with the general flow of the answers to your inquiry. 75 square feet is meaningful in a house of, say, less than 1,000 sf: as has been said, in a house of almost 4,000, it's hard to say that that amount is significant.

I would be more interested in the morphing of the plans, but, Ross's response speaks to that, I think.

The question (discrepancy, if you will) appears to be between the square footage in the plan the builder finally agreed upon and square footage the appraiser reported (and the assessor, too, I suppose). (I can alos see how, as a matter of doing business, the changes in the plan footages would be an irritation.) The appraisal report ought to have a sketch of the property, as well as calculations showing how the GLA was calculated: it should be fairly straightforward to compare dimensions on the plan with dimensions on the appraiser's sketch.

Unless you're conscience bound to have the tax assessor be precisely correct about your GLA, please know that most governmental assessment systems are cost loaded for residential property, and one thing the assessors know is how to cost out square footage.

But, again, at the end of the day, the difference isn't significant (at least from a valuation standpoint - I can't speak to any offense created because you believe you weren't delivered what you thought you were buying). As a practical matter, it might make more sense to limit your requests for follow up with the builder to implied warranty matters and those after-occupancy little things all new houses require.

 

[Lobo Fan]

Square footage can get a little goofy if there are a lot of angles other than 90 degrees, bay windows, clerstories, and stairwells. Some include stairwells in both floors, others in only one. I think the most recent ANSI standard is that a stairwell can be included on both floors.

Like the others have said +/- 2% is pretty darn close. Your actual damages are fairly minor. I am not sure if it is worth getting all cranked-up over it.