Uneconomic Remnant or another term?

[vanguard]

Appraising a 48-acre tract with home. I have about 6 acres that should go to another property owner based on the shape of the land. I do not feel it adds significant contributory value and would be more valuable to a contiguous homeowner. A buyer would not pay more or less for the property based on this 6+/- acres.

Going back to my memory of appraisal classes I remembered a term "uneconomic remnant" which is not in the Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal nor in the Appraisal of Real Estate. Remnant is in the dictionary. Correct term or is there a better term?
I don't know how to post an image of the site.

Mich I think Can might be correct in labeling it “excess land”. It also appears to be landlocked. Does Michigan permit convyance of landlocked property. Below is your response to a similar subject.

http://appraisersforum.com/showpost.php?p=1716806&postcount=2

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

It's worth what someone would pay for some extra land to farm (or use for expansion if it were say some commercial land in the city, for example.) It may not sell for as much as if it was a separate, buildable lot but what's that got to do with anything?

Perhaps you're saying it's just as valuable to the present owner as it might be to the owner of the contiguous property?

Uh, because he's trying to determine its contributory value?

 

[Mark K]

"Uneconomic remnant" would apply to a parcel that's already severed; I frequently encounter them in r/w work. The studies I have indicate values in the 5% to 90% of fee, depending on the size, shape, utility, and number of potential suitors.

Looking at your aerial view, I wouldn't apply it in this situation. I agree that the value of the parent parcel is probably worth about the same with or without it but that could be said of many parcels.

I live on a 5 acre tract and there's a 1/4 acre section on the other side of the creek that the neighbor would pay dearly to own. It wouldn't affect my overall value if I sold it; the value of a 4.75 ac. tract is essentially the same as a 5 ac. tract, but I wouldn't appraise assuming the split.

 

[Michigan CG]

I thought I could use a fancy word but in the end I called it surplus land. It is a goofy part of the property and it has no road frontage. Splitting it is not legal if it has no frontage unless it is combined with another contiguous property.

The farmer won't buy it as he gets to farm it for free. Why buy the milk when the cow is free comes to mind.

 

[CANative]

You know I'm not going to let you get away with this without a struggle. :laugh:

The lot doesn't need to be "split." A simple BLA (boundary line adjustment) would enable that portion (or any other portion) to be sold to someone else. And I don't think the guy farming it is the only potential buyer. From the aerial view it looks like there might be as many as three other properties that could buy the land using a BLA.

So maybe the farmer getting the free milk could be offered the extra land if the owner told him he was offering it to the other properties contiguous.

As far as "surplus land" what is the unit of comparison? Just that appendage? What is the land size considered HBU for the primary improvements? In other words, how much surplus land is there considering the whole parcel?

 

[Michigan CG]

You know I'm not going to let you get away with this without a struggle. :laugh:

The lot doesn't need to be "split." A simple BLA (boundary line adjustment) would enable that portion (or any other portion) to be sold to someone else. And I don't think the guy farming it is the only potential buyer. From the aerial view it looks like there might be as many as three other properties that could buy the land using a BLA.

Looking at the other parcels, and the homes there I doubt any of the three other contiguous homeowners would want the land. The farmer is the most likely buyer and yes it could be done with a BLA.

So maybe the farmer getting the free milk could be offered the extra land if the owner told him he was offering it to the other properties contiguous.

I know who the farmer is, a loss of 7 acres, five tillable is not going to cause him any lost sleep. We are talking corn and beans here.

As far as "surplus land" what is the unit of comparison? Just that appendage? What is the land size considered HBU for the primary improvements? In other words, how much surplus land is there considering the whole parcel?

The entire parcel is 48 acres. A loss of seven acres still lets the guy enjoy the land to the fullest. When we were riding around in his Gator he mentioned that he hadn't been on that part of the land in a couple years.

48 or 41 acres does not affect the enjoyment of the parcel. The barn and the 3-acre pond are his pride and joy. The seven acres of corn field is "just there".

As for Highest and Best Use.....the "appendage" seven acres is "goofy". Look that up in your dictionary.

 

[CANative]

Okay. I'm good to go on this one.

Just wanted to bring up the issues for others who may benefit by seeing how the thought process goes.