Using Condominiums as Comparable Sales for a Single Family (details)

[EddieB]

Preface by saying my experience is in the more rural locations were site attributes are a common adjustment. My concern about the condo form of ownership is that the whole is only as strong as the weakest and a prospective buyer may react differently to SFR. Maybe in such an urban market that difference is small.

 

[Lee Lansford]

Limiting the question to "can condo-ownership dwellings be compared to dwellings that are non-condo-ownership, the answer is "yes".

There are certain caveats along the road, but, in principle, the answer is yes.

 

[RSW]

Realtors in the Knoxville area market both attached PUDs and Condos the same way. They call them all Condos. Therefore, the public perception is that they are condos. It is a common practice for appraisers to use condos to appraise PUDs and PUDs to appraise condos around here.

 

[residentialguy]

Yes. DTB stated a good starting point to find market reaction. These single fam homes sound like detached townhomes. Typically detached homes are prefered...except for pervs that like to drill holes in the connecting walls.

.

 

[DMZwerg]

I would use pond/non pond condos to extract a % adjustment for view.

That is my feeling as well ... I would use the condos to extract/support a % adjustment for view. Then non-pond SFR comparables could be used and the condos included in the 5-6 slots of the matrix to show where the adjustment came from. #4 may or may not be the sale of subject or vacant lot for land, or another condo sale. In any case I would make certain I had definite separation between the SFRs and the condo sales.

 

[Tim The Enchanter]

We have projects where it's not clear if it's PUD or condo, public records say both. They even say SFR. Finished one today. They're detached homes with an HOA. 1 plat page for project, 1 page that shows the lots. Regular attached condos is LA County usually have a page to show dimensions for the unit, these don't. I hate to compare attached to detached. But sometimes you have to. Some projects have both. m2:

I hate the things, they're some mutant property type, and the agents call it all different things. SFR, PUD, Condo. Maybe they mark the attached / detached field, maybe they don't. Maybe they note there's an HOA, maybe they don't There's no uniformity at all. Makes it a pain in the membrane. :new_snipersmilie:

 

[David Mescon]

Bruiser Boy is on target, conceptually. I would prefer at least four or five sets of comps. to two, if possible. If the option exists, I would utilize off pond SFRs from within your project; on and off pond condos. from within your project; on-pond and off pond SFRs from anywhere you could consider even remotely comparable, (I wouldn't worry about proximity, only physical similarity of the projects), and on-pond and off-pond condos. from within that same outside project. With these additional datasets you could establish, quantitatively, differentials between on and off pond sites, locational characteristics between the subject and outside project, and between condos and SFRs.

 

[Restrain]

IMO, you are going to have to show something to demonstrate the site differential and SF on land differential vs site condos. I can see an UW having a cow over this and rejecting the loan, not to mention when it hits the secondary UW review. Whatever you do, keep that in mind. I don't envy your problem.

You actually might go back to the client and outline the problem. There's a distinct possibility that the lender may decide to pull the plug on this one given the issues.

 

[AnonApprsr]

Restrain, that's the thing, the one next door had an appraisal done and the appraiser used the condos. It went through original UW already and it's going to close soon.

 

[David Mescon]

Restrain, that's the thing, the one next door had an appraisal done and the appraiser used the condos. It went through original UW already and it's going to close soon.

Did that appraiser disclose the use of condos. in the report?