Tony Young
Freshman Member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2006
Hey everybody. I have a quick question. Now through a couple of different mentors I have heard of different ways to accommodate this situation. We are appraising a home that has a in-law unit that was permitted back in 1983 per city permit department. Through research we have located 3 comparables that have similar inlaw units. 2 of them have the quest house included in the GLA, one does not. I have also grided 4 other comparable from the immediate competing marketplace that do not have the guest house. Here goes the question do I
Include the guest house is the GLA advancing the total room count, bed/bath, etc. and bracket it by GLA, Bed/bath, Condition Location, and homes with and without guest house
Do I not include the additional GLA from the guest house and derive a lump sum adjustment for properties without guest house through market reaction or income approach.
And if #2 is the right way to do it, do I extract the guest house GLA from the comps that have the guest house that were reported as the two being combined?
Or these approaches could all be wrong, but I am a bright eyed sponge for knowledge looking for guidance from the YODAS!!!
I have seen both ways done and don’t know where the advance peer reviewer would think was a more acceptable approach.
:new_smile-l:
Include the guest house is the GLA advancing the total room count, bed/bath, etc. and bracket it by GLA, Bed/bath, Condition Location, and homes with and without guest house
Do I not include the additional GLA from the guest house and derive a lump sum adjustment for properties without guest house through market reaction or income approach.
And if #2 is the right way to do it, do I extract the guest house GLA from the comps that have the guest house that were reported as the two being combined?
Or these approaches could all be wrong, but I am a bright eyed sponge for knowledge looking for guidance from the YODAS!!!
I have seen both ways done and don’t know where the advance peer reviewer would think was a more acceptable approach.
:new_smile-l: