Appraisers' Free Forum

Let's say you have a 15 acre tract under one assessor parcel number. But the property consists of 2 surveyed tracts. You are asked to appraise one. Do you think that you are appraising a unitary holding? or a fractional interest? And how do you write your analysis?

And, the opposite. You have 2 parcel numbers and only one survey. Two tracts or one?

[I see the first occasionally usually when a very old deed was executed they consolidated APN's when the current number system was created - circa 1980 and I see the latter when a tract crosses a section line. Our assessor appraises tracts section by section so applies a parcel number to both sides of the section line.]

Ter,
Forgive my oversimplification, but the Assessor assesses taxes; s/he doesn't determine property boundaries.

If the deed says it's one parcel, then that's what it is. IMO, the manner in which tax is levied on it doesn't change its ownership characteristics. But many users will think otherwise, so a good thorough explanation of why the Assessor considers it two parcels, and the appraiser considers it to be only one, is certainly in order.

In the case of two surveyed tracts, one parcel number, the same reasoning applies: The deed governs. I think in that case I'd invoke "larger parcel" doctrine. Unity of ownership, unity of use, and contiguity makes it one tract, if that's what the agreed SOW calls for.

In the case of one APN, two tracts, assigned to appraise one, then I'd say that USPAP requires you to "particularly describe the property being appraised; and that it allows you to appraise a physical segment of real property without appraising the whole. Just appraise the one you're assigned.

HBU of the single tract might be different from the combined tract, especially if zoning regs have changed. E.g., the old law had no minimum width at building line requirement, and the new law would require both lots to be combined to meet the new requirement of 100' lot width at building line.

Yes, but in the case I am working on the deed was filed years ago and parcels have been sold off. The owner then surveyed out his shop and 13 acres from his house and 2 acres. He has no separate "deed" for the house, only the survey. Both tracts if sold would have new legal description (the survey). But currently they are still under the same APN. The title opinion would have the original deed, minus 2 acre, minus 3 acres, minus 19 acres, and whats left are the town tracts which again are surveyed (and recorded) but not separate tax parcels.

Ter Shields wrote:Yes, but in the case I am working on the deed was filed years ago and parcels have been sold off. The owner then surveyed out his shop and 13 acres from his house and 2 acres. He has no separate "deed" for the house, only the survey. Both tracts if sold would have new legal description (the survey). But currently they are still under the same APN. The title opinion would have the original deed, minus 2 acre, minus 3 acres, minus 19 acres, and whats left are the town tracts which again are surveyed (and recorded) but not separate tax parcels.

With a legal description as provided by the survey you can appraise it since you can identify it through reliance on the survey. The problem comes when you are asked to appraise 5 acres out of 20 and you have no idea what five acres except that they are supposed to contain the house. That sort of identification is not specific enough for appraising. What you have is Ter. The fact that the assessor hasn't awarded two parcels yet is of no significance to your problem, nor will it be when he gets around to it.

But Edd the issue (for me that is) seems to be - since it is under one assessors card could or would someone bring up the issue of one tract having an impact upon the other....

The impact would be minimal in the case I refer to if you are valuing the commercial building and large land, but such building may have an impact upon the valuation of the house and 2 acres by sheer proximity (100' or so). Would a buyer hesitate when the home they want to purchase sits next to an operating repair shop? Maybe??

Ter Shields wrote:But Edd the issue (for me that is) seems to be - since it is under one assessors card could or would someone bring up the issue of one tract having an impact upon the other....

The impact would be minimal in the case I refer to if you are valuing the commercial building and large land, but such building may have an impact upon the valuation of the house and 2 acres by sheer proximity (100' or so). Would a buyer hesitate when the home they want to purchase sits next to an operating repair shop? Maybe??

Now you are going over the rainbow. Let 'em build the shop and the house and let's see if the market cares.

I do not understand where the impact comes from if the only question is severing the joined parcels on the assessor's card. You are in AR, and I have only been to Eureka Springs on one short occasion (no place to park the car), but where I am the assessors just don't have any influence with respect to legal descriptions or appraising. You could "fix" this with a simple phone call. If that didn't work, when the deed came through the assessor would just make another parcel. It is that simple. It is just bookkeeping.

sounds to me like no one has attempted a "sub division", and if that were done - you would have two assessor's cards and two distinct parcel's. right now it appears you have One parcel with two survey's, doesn't really mean alot, unless the application has been made for the split.

What the deed says often has very little to do with what the property is at this point in time. Frequently, non-contiguous properties are deeded together, and frequently parts of properties are sold after the deed is filed. Likewise, how the assessor assesses really does not determine what the property is.

Think of it this way: what would the market do?

Okay, you have a surveyed tract. They want an appraisal. Appraise it. End of story. Whether they own other land (whether contiguous or not) has nothing to do with the value of that one tract. This is not a partial interest situation unless the assignment involves comparing the one tract to others or to the entire holding.

Second situation, you have two tracts that are contiguous. Someone wants the entirety appraised. What's the problem? Appraise it.

Third scenario. Someone owns a large tract. The corner where they want the appraisal has not been separately surveyed and there is no separate deeded description or tax card. Now you're in a little bit different territory. You can still appraise it, but you have to write either a hypothetical condition or an extraordinary assumption (and maybe both). Don't let the fact that Fannie won't accept an appraisal of the "house and five acres" throw you off track. The house and five acres, or any other portion of a tract can still be appraised if it is physically and legally possible for it to be separately marketed.