Weight of view on appraisal value?

[Terrel L. Shields]

ighbor builds a 15' wooden fence on their eastern boundary, what about that view?

you sue them. Most towns have height restrictions anyway.

we adjust for view as a premium,

premiums? What textbook. Quote please.

If a lot sells for double because of its view, then that is built into the sale price of an improved lot. But that view is there even if the lot is vacant. Any idiot who prices a lot knows that. They are going to ask for a premium. So the "view" is baked into the cake. The house is the same regardless if it is on this lot or another. It will cost the same. The buyer of the improved property is paying a premium over that cost that is directly related to the VIEW, right? No view, no premium. Any other lot without a view, no premium. The premium is in the land. You cannot claim the house will sell for double or triple its cost to construct simply by saying that is the Replacement Cost New. RCN does not include "view". The premium is in the land.

 

[J Grant]

you sue them. Most towns have height restrictions anyway.

premiums? What textbook. Quote please.

If a lot sells for double because of its view, then that is built into the sale price of an improved lot. But that view is there even if the lot is vacant. Any idiot who prices a lot knows that. They are going to ask for a premium. So the "view" is baked into the cake. The house is the same regardless if it is on this lot or another. It will cost the same. The buyer of the improved property is paying a premium over that cost that is directly related to the VIEW, right? No view, no premium. Any other lot without a view, no premium. The premium is in the land. You cannot claim the house will sell for double or triple its cost to construct simply by saying that is the Replacement Cost New. RCN does not include "view". The premium is in the land.

We get it, Terrel, we got it on page one. If we were doing a land appraisal, great.

But a land appraisal is not the topic. The topic is appraising the house and land, and the premium paid goes toward the view ,(since the house and land now sell as one econimc package ) Buyers pay more or less for a view, they are not paying more or less for vacant lot at that point because they are not buying a vacant lot.

 

[CGinMN]

When vacant land or vacant sites are appraised, the land is it - everything, including view, is attributable to it. Very often, especially in built up areas, the buyer for a vacant site is not the same buyer as for a house on a site.

After the house is put on the land and they are sold together, then everything contributes to the value of the whole. A lake view, for example, might contribute 100k to a vacant site as seen in the prices. But after the house is placed on the site and they are sold together, the Lake View, per other sales and market alanlsus, the Lakeview might contribute 50k or might contribute 200k.

^^^This. The market for a vacant site is different than the market for a the same site with an improvement in it. Market conditions are different, therefore the valuation model is different, and the way the market participants value view may be different.

Two “identical” sites sold for the $500,000. On one site a 3000sf 2 story home with no oceanview was built, on the other a 3000sf 3 story home with a rooftop deck was built to take advantage of the ocean view. The market demonstrates that the 3 story home requires a $100,000 view adjustment when compared to the 2 story home that lacks the oceanview, even though the sites are identical and sold for the same amount. It wouldn’t make sense to adjust for view on the site line in this scenario. In other scenarios, it might.

 

[alebrewer]

Redundant

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

If we were doing a land appraisal, great.

So once a house is built the land becomes invisible. OK. I get it.

The market for a vacant site is different than the market for a the same site with an improvement in it.

The F'n value (either stand alone or as part of a site for improvements) is exactly the same contribution. LAND IS VALUED AS IF VACANT AND AVAILABLE FOR ITS HIGHEST AND BEST USE... always. So, the contributory value of the building varies with the value of the land...not vice versa.

The buyer of the property does not make one d***ed bit of difference. It is what it is. There is only one price (value) to the land. Any defect accrues to the improvements (functional obsolescence) and while an externality (like a landfill next door) can impact both, it still does not DEPRECIATE the land. The land cannot move so its value is what its value is - period. There are no dual value lots.

You act like somehow that there is zero relationship between cost and sales when they are interlocked. And regardless vacant or developed, the "view" is an attribute of the land, not vice versa.

 

[J Grant]

So once a house is built the land becomes invisible. OK. I get it.

Stop posting falsehoods.I never said the land is invisible .You lose all credilbity when you pull this sh**t. I said numersous times the land value estiamte is in the cost approach and any view contributon to the land as vacant is baked into the land price or land value estimate

Your advice on residential topics is frequently off base, yet you double down on your arguments instead of listening to people far more experienced in that sector.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

our advice on residential topics is frequently off base, yet you double down on your arguments instead of listening to people far more experienced in that sector.

It does not make an aerial assault upon an orbiting pastry whether commercial or residential. Land has one value. And the view from that land is an attribute of the site, not the building and you cannot point out a single recognized textbook that says view is a separate function from the land.

If you buy a lot to build a house on (and in a lot of places this is as common as some developer buying land and developing) you are paying for the view. Once the house is built, the buyer pays that premium, as well as the premium for EP, and the time value of money of not having to buy and build on a lot. And, therefore, the land value in the grid is the sum of these benefits.

I see a lot of reports over the years where land is never adjusted, be it 3-acre lot vs a 0.18 acre one, or one rural report I saw, absurd values were placed on land. One larger site calculated to a $600 an acre adjustment while local land prices were $3,000/acre or so. Why? Obviously, to lower the land contribution so that the adjustment numbers "worked." Completely absurd and the lender called them out over it. That's how i got involved. And yes, the appraiser was a CR. She ended up before the state board later for the second time and proceeded to cuss them and walk out. Then I found out later she was blaming me and another appraiser for a complaint we had nothing to do with.

 

[J Grant]

It does not make an aerial assault upon an orbiting pastry whether commercial or residential. Land has one value. And the view from that land is an attribute of the site, not the building and you cannot point out a single recognized textbook that says view is a separate function from the land.

If you buy a lot to build a house on (and in a lot of places this is as common as some developer buying land and developing) you are paying for the view. Once the house is built, the buyer pays that premium, as well as the premium for EP, and the time value of money of not having to buy and build on a lot. And, therefore, the land value in the grid is the sum of these benefits.

I see a lot of reports over the years where land is never adjusted, be it 3-acre lot vs a 0.18 acre one, or one rural report I saw, absurd values were placed on land. One larger site calculated to a $600 an acre adjustment while local land prices were $3,000/acre or so. Why? Obviously, to lower the land contribution so that the adjustment numbers "worked." Completely absurd and the lender called them out over it. That's how i got involved. And yes, the appraiser was a CR. She ended up before the state board later for the second time and proceeded to cuss them and walk out. Then I found out later she was blaming me and another appraiser for a complaint we had nothing to do with.

What the heck are you talking about? You posted here that your own trainee for a residential license had her work come before the state board twice.

A good residential appraiser adjusts for land and lot size when indicated, which is a different subject than view.

All you do is confuse people and get off topic. You have no real interest in learning anything -and will drill down on poor advice to be stubborn even if it misleads newbies. None of us are right all the time including myself -

 

[Mark K]

None of us are right all the time including myself -

Wow!! I think hell just froze over.

 

[jay trotta]

Location can impact the improvements, view exists whether a house is there or not. I find it a stretch to claim a "Lakeview" lot where you can only see a tiny bit of the lake in winter from the second story dormer window.

Over the years, there were off & on periods in which, a stream, creek, river was being promoted as waterfront via local agents. IMO- they were in the learning period of their excitement of the business and has drifted away (there is a limit to puffery). Perhaps the most interesting I've seen was a period in which the assessor was noting some waterfront properties as "Ocean Front" and had to address that one. A good majority of our coastline is known as Long Island Sound and the Ocean is South of Long Island (IE: S/SW/SE). It has been very interesting over time, as to how others view items of interest.