Weight of view on appraisal value?

[alebrewer]

USPAP says that peer practice is a standard - as it should be. The clients and users have to know that when they order an appraisal, whether they order it from appraiser A, B, or C, certain accepted methodologies will be used - otherwise, one appraisal can have wildly different results than the other. The idea of public trust is based on that.

I don't mean an appraisal should be micromanaged to be identical to another, but the principals and methods should be the standard for the kind of assignment it is and unless peers share the same standard, it is not a profession -

-The expectations of parties who are regularly intended users for similar assignments and what an appraiser’s peers’ actions would be in performing the same or a similar assignment.

Yes but.... you're not the appraisal police, J. I think it's great to provide alternate views to different topics so that folks can make up their own minds, but it's obtuse to need to make them believe the same thing you do. Not accusing you, of course. Just stating that as a general rule. And 'expectations' is not the same as 'standard' (at least in the context of USPAP).

 

[Mark K]

A blind guy might pay extra for a waterfront property for the investment potential, not for the view.

OTOH, a buyer with normal vision might buy the same property for the view.

Location and view are separate. Location is a fact; view is an amenity based on the opinion of the typical buyer/owner. And both can be quantified in an appraisal.

You can have an undesirable location with a fabulous view. Imagine owning a lot with an expansive view of the mountains or ocean but its located between two owners that are professional appraisers that argue continuously about every little thing.

 

[Tiffany Gibbons]

A blind guy might pay extra for a waterfront property for the investment potential, not for the view.

OTOH, a buyer with normal vision might buy the same property for the view.

Location and view are separate. Location is a fact; view is an amenity based on the opinion of the typical buyer/owner. And both can be quantified in an appraisal.

You can have an undesirable location with a fabulous view. Imagine owning a lot with an expansive view of the mountains or ocean but its located between two owners that are professional appraisers that argue continuously about every little thing.

Agree. And once again nothing from the OP, who is obviously a troll.

 

[J Grant]

Yes but.... you're not the appraisal police, J. I think it's great to provide alternate views to different topics so that folks can make up their own minds, but it's obtuse to need to make them believe the same thing you do. Not accusing you, of course. Just stating that as a general rule. And 'expectations' is not the same as 'standard' (at least in the context of USPAP).

I am not the appraisal police - none of us are!

but this board exists to educate and inform and people lose sight of beyond our arguing the topic ( or arguing with each other) USPAP has a standard of peer practice (for good reason)

 

[alebrewer]

but this board exists to educate and inform and people lose sight of beyond our arguing the topic ( or arguing with each other) USPAP has a standard of peer practice (for good reason)

I'd modify that just a bit to say USPAP has an 'expectation' of performing in accordance with the expectation of what peers would do - not a standard. Standards are just that - standards. In addition, I'd argue that the board exists to exchange opinions - not to educate folks. Are folks educated via the exchange of opinions? Of course. But that's not (IMO) why the board exists. Education providers exist to provide education. The board exists to exchange opinions. Again - IMO.

To elucidate: a member starts a thread with a question about how to handle a certain issue. There are 100 different responses with about 75 different ideas on how to handle the issue. That's not education - that's an exchange of opinions. The OP would then think through the exchange and decide on which course is most appropriate for them. No one else is signing their certs - only them. Thus, the board serves as an exchange of opinions, not as an education provider.

 

[Sadie]

Not a single client in over 25 years has ever asked me to attribute a view value to the land. It goes on it's own line item as view. And the same goes for every other appraiser I know. ,I am not ignoring the land value entirely. I said numerous times I develop a cost approach and the view contribution is baked into the land estimate.

Back in the olden days on the old 1004, the site and view were on the same line. I kind of liked.

 

[Surf Cat]

No it isn't. A lake is a beneficial view. That "view" may be superior to a lakeshore lot, but the lakeside lot will probably sell higher.

That's why I contend that in the previous example you gave, that the value is in the "lakeside" location. The sale up the hill may have a nice view of the lake however, they are not on the lake.....

Location and view are separate. Location is a fact; view is an amenity based on the opinion of the typical buyer/owner. And both can be quantified in an appraisal.

I concur with this.

Let's pump the brakes for a second and get back to the OP.

When comparing properties in an appraisal, should a view add value? I reviewed an appraisal today on a property which has a spectacular view of San Francisco, including the city skyline and multiple bridges, from the entire first and second floors.

My bolds for emphasis. We have a Skyline View from "the entire" first and second floors. In my area....the market would contend that it adds value.

The comps, while otherwise comparable, have no views and are adjusted on square footage alone.

It is my opinion that all of the comps suck for the same reason...."none" of the sales utilized, according to the op, have any sort of view. I can't fathom if this is true, how this report got by underwriting. What appraiser worth their salt, would NOT include a sale or do an analysis of such a view as described in order to gauge the market reaction?

Me, I would go about the techniques described in the article I posted in post #90 to decipher the market reaction for "the view" and make an adjustment on the 1004, in the grid, in the view cell. No mentor, lender, underwriter, text, has informed me otherwise....

I mean.....why even have a section in the forms dedicated for the market reaction of views, if said views are included in the value of the land?

Anyways, as Tiffany said, we've been trolled....

 

[Sadie]

I am wondering if there is more topography in the view property that offset the benefit of the view. If the lot is a cliff that needs lots of engineering to build on, then the benefit may be offset. Or maybe it is a typo on the grid and at least one of the comparables has a view. It should be explained in the addendum. How did the appraiser explain the lack of an adjustment?

 

[Dublin ohio]

Anyways, as Tiffany said, we've been trolled....

Maybe, maybe not. If the OP is actually the general public. They probably said "WTF" after the first response and realized after a few more that any answer was fleeting at the best

 

[Sadie]

Agree. And once again nothing from the OP, who is obviously a troll.

I think OP is the property owner