Third Parties Claim To "external Obsolescence" - The Whole Street!

[Deleted member 152047]

I'm saying the neighborhood's take on the concept is absurd and that a legally permissible use on one parcel doesn't force 'external obsolescence' on all other nearby parcels.

#1- don't be an *ss
#2- the preceding statement is not absolute. In other words, the property could have a negative effect on the neighboring property's values
#3- don't worry about it, there is literally nothing that YOU can do about it. It is a legal issue, not an appraisal issue.

 

[DeprivationDiddy]

#3- don't worry about it, there is literally nothing that YOU can do about it. It is a legal issue, not an appraisal issue.

Thanks, but I can't just - not worry about it - because my sister is distraught and in tears. I'm just trying to give her some 'somewhat' qualified advice on the matter. I'm not sure that her LL can afford an attorney of the magnitude possibly required to handle this.

 

[TRESinc]

So on the one hand, the government understands that unless the use has been abandoned, condemned, or destroyed, the use must be allowed into perpetuity in regard to the owner's property rights, hence the existence of the current nonconforming use. On the other hand, and at the same time, the neighborhood can claim that use at the subj prop is negatively affecting their values? That seems like a contradiction in and of itself.

and the government cares about how a legally permissible use affects other property values because???

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

The municipalities hands are tied legally. If they were to force the landlord to reduce the number of units it would qualify as a defacto taking and they would be on the hook for damages to the property owner (assuming all else is legit and there are occupancy permits for the units).

My sister-in-law lives near me but on a street with several duplexes and another multi-family dwelling. Her house is valued less than a comparable property on a street that is strictly single family (one block away) so there is a certain level of external obsolescence evident.

that said, it is a "maybe" situation. Would seem to me that the only issue the municipality can address without being on the hook for $s is to acknowledge that the neighbors are correct and reduce their assessed values.

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

An interesting and relevant question would be whether the property your sister lives in was there and functioning as it does now when they purchased their adjoining properties?

 

[jay trotta]

Thanks, but I can't just - not worry about it - because my sister is distraught and in tears. I'm just trying to give her some 'somewhat' qualified advice on the matter. I'm not sure that her LL can afford an attorney of the magnitude possibly required to handle this.

You were given some advice, the LL has a complex condition, and an attorney may be needed at some point.

Can you Define, "somewhat qualified advice" ??

The answer to your question is; It Depends

 

[DeprivationDiddy]

Great points, Pete.

Yes, the interesting point is the legal nonconforming use has been in place and in use openly for at least 40 years when the zoning ordinance changed. It was 40 years ago the use was grandfathered. I know for a fact that all of the adjoining property owners have purchased and moved in within the last 40 years. So I believe what your leading to is:

Those surrounding owners had the onus of due diligence when they investigated the property at their individual time(s) of purchase. Such onus allows the LL to place some (if not a majority) of the blame at the neighbor's feet for failing to know that the property possessed the unique characteristics (a multifamily dwelling) that it had. The use was open and notorious. It is unfair, now, at this time, to gather up a disgruntled group and claim that the subj prop is imposing external obsolescence on the whole street. Is that your train of thought?

Further, since the use has been in place for decades, they can't seek relieve from the appeal board in regards to the use. What they might do is seek relief from the ad valorem tax assessor?

Am I in sync with you?

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

Great points, Pete.

Yes, the interesting point is the legal nonconforming use has been in place and in use openly for at least 40 years when the zoning ordinance changed. It was 40 years ago the use was grandfathered. I know for a fact that all of the adjoining property owners have purchased and moved in within the last 40 years. So I believe what your leading to is:

Those surrounding owners had the onus of due diligence when they investigated the property at their individual time(s) of purchase. Such onus allows the LL to place some (if not a majority) of the blame at the neighbor's feet for failing to know that the property possessed the unique characteristics (a multifamily dwelling) that it had. The use was open and notorious. It is unfair, now, at this time, to gather up a disgruntled group and claim that the subj prop is imposing external obsolescence on the whole street. Is that your train of thought?

Further, since the use has been in place for decades, they can't seek relieve from the appeal board in regards to the use. What they might do is seek relief from the ad valorem tax assessor?

Am I in sync with you?

Pretty much. Their properties suffered from the external obsolescence (maybe) when they bought them. Also, big can of worms for the municipality to try to do anything that would impact the owner of the multi-family property's value--would be on the hook for damages as a defacto taking. Falls into eminent domain territory--if they could pull it off your sister would be eligible for relocation benefits, moving expenses, etc.

 

[Michigan CG]

External obsolescence can be a tricky proposition. Let us say that all the houses on the street are the same and that all the houses on the next street over are the same as the ones on the subject street.

Houses on the subject street will experience EO relative to the homes on the next street over but will not experience EO when compared to the other houses on the same street. Actually the houses directly contiguous to the multi-family and right across the street to the multi-family will be the most affected (typically). A house five doors down might not be affected at all or significantly less than the other homes that are closer.

As Pete said, they knew the multi-family home was there when they bought their houses; it is not like someone put up a crack house last week.

I am going out on a limb and guess the subject neighborhood is experiencing gentrification and the new up-and-coming residents have decided they don't like the multi-family in the neighborhood. They have a simple solution, buy the multi-family home and convert it or sit down and be quiet.

 

[Bob Ipock]

Thanks, but I can't just - not worry about it - because my sister is distraught and in tears. I'm just trying to give her some 'somewhat' qualified advice on the matter. I'm not sure that her LL can afford an attorney of the magnitude possibly required to handle this.

Then hire a local attorney....instead of pretending you are one.