Weight of view on appraisal value?

[J Grant]

No. They are adjusting for the land attribute that view offers. Call it what they want. But they do need to know the differnce. No bank lends on an intangible asset. This value is baked into the land. And if they are valuing the land AND adding the view, then they are double-dipping.

The view is part of the property appeal, just as location or other "intangibles" are. View is not a separate, intangible asset a lender decides to lend on. The view is part of the appeal, and a reason why a buyer pays more. The value of the view contributes to total price, and if you break out the land, it is baked into the land price, BUT WE ARE NOT APPRAISOMG VACANT LAND . We are appraising the land and improvement together as a package..

Therefore the view is considered the $ a buyer pays ( or does not pay ) for as the total as a contribution. Most reviewers would slam an appraisal for not adjusting for view when the market indicates it.

 

[Surf Cat]

So, are you saying that the land value is double or triple that of other lots then you plunk on an additional $50 for view???

No.... I wasn't saying double or triple the lot value. In my hypothetical example, I was just seeing where you would put the difference of 50K, attributable from "not" having the lake view in a 1004 report.....

I'm not trying to turn the screws on you or anything.... I was just trying to understand how you handled it.

I just don't see how you can get around it on a 1004 for the GSE's.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

BUT WE ARE NOT APPRAISOMG VACANT LAND .

So, you are ignoring land value entirely right...? Regardless of a difference in land value between subject and comps? No adjustment? And how do you adjust if you do not know what anything is worth (ignoring land?) I mean doesn't any of your clients ask for the land value? FHA? FNMA forms have a cost approach section too... doesn't anyone ask for it?

I just don't see how you can get around it on a 1004 for the GSE's.

You make a land adjustment, then in remarks say that "view" is an attribute of the land (site) value. A negative, such as being next door to a landfill? That, once again, is not a view issue to me. It is an externality that negatively impacts the improvements. And it could be smell or trash more so than view of the works. I know this is an issue near a landfill attempting to expand nearby and if denied, then no telling where trash will have to be hauled to. Same with a limestone quarry near me. It's been dry and the dust through the road by it was horrible. Cars across the road were covered in dust. View is the least problematic of the issues. And where does "external obsolescence" go? In the cost approach against the improvements, but it also can impact the land value "as is" but the HBU might be as an extension of the mine (some properties have limestone there too).

 

[J Grant]

So, you are ignoring land value entirely right...? Regardless of a difference in land value between subject and comps? No adjustment? And how do you adjust if you do not know what anything is worth (ignoring land?) I mean doesn't any of your clients ask for the land value? FHA? FNMA forms have a cost approach section too... doesn't anyone ask for it?

You make a land adjustment, then in remarks say that "view" is an attribute of the land (site) value. A negative, such as being next door to a landfill? That, once again, is not a view issue to me. It is an externality that negatively impacts the improvements. And it could be smell or trash more so than view of the works. I know this is an issue near a landfill attempting to expand nearby and if denied, then no telling where trash will have to be hauled to. Same with a limestone quarry near me. It's been dry and the dust through the road by it was horrible. Cars across the road were covered in dust. View is the least problematic of the issues. And where does "external obsolescence" go? In the cost approach against the improvements, but it also can impact the land value "as is" but the HBU might be as an extension of the mine (some properties have limestone there too).

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.

 

[George Hatch]

It's an interesting question because an oceanfront condo project has a singular location but only one side of the building has the view amenity; the difference being in how the building was designed and built.

I've never seen a view amenity alter the value of an industrial or a retail or an ag use. Office and residential and perhaps a (house of worship).

Moreover, if the structure isn't oriented to the view or isn't designed to "use" the view then its (location w/view) doesn't become a significant factor.

The Marin City property apparently has an obstructed view of the bay. 60ft elevation from ~1/2 mile to the east; but the design of the building and the windows in the living room weren't oriented to take full advantage of that view.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Moreover, if the structure isn't oriented to the view or isn't designed to "use" the view then its (location w/view) doesn't become a significant factor.

Brings up an interesting conundrum. If you don't optimize the improvements orientation, is it a functional obsolescence of the building, and if so, where in the grid would you put it, and would it accrue to the improvements or the land?

It goes on it's own line item as view.

So? How many times do you see anyone fill out the top and bottom lines below and make an adjustment? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[bnmappraisal]

I've never been able to adequately support a 'million dollar view'.

Come to FL my friend I can show you 2 very similar homes that can be 7 figures apart

 

[J Grant]

Brings up an interesting conundrum. If you don't optimize the improvements orientation, is it a functional obsolescence of the building, and if so, where in the grid would you put it, and would it accrue to the improvements or the land?

So? How many times do you see anyone fill out the top and bottom lines below and make an adjustment? Inquiring minds want to know.
View attachment 91545

What does that have to do with anything? If there are differences the comps have to the subject in any of the above line items that affect value, we adjust for it.

 

[Surf Cat]

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.

In the context of a "form" report, this is the way I've always done it. I was trying to wrap my head around Terrel' s way.

It's a bummer the OP bailed to get more info....

 

[George Hatch]

Brings up an interesting conundrum. If you don't optimize the improvements orientation, is it a functional obsolescence of the building, and if so, where in the grid would you put it, and would it accrue to the improvements or the land?

I don't know exactly what the answer is to that question. In my head I'm thinking that sometimes a view is just a view. "Most similar" to that buyer would consist of similar, right?