Site Size Correction Notices
AMC’s who demand you change site size in reports are amateurs…
Yesterday, an appraiser ‘pen pal’ sent me the query below, asking what I would do. My response follows.
I admit to having a very low tolerance level for stupidity and demands from others who don’t possess all the facts, and most often are not appraisers.
“Over the past year with more AMCs going to automated checker software, I have been getting “correction notices” about the site size I reported, almost for every report. So, I changed how I did it so it would stop coming back, but I feel it’s wrong.”
Yes, it is wrong!
“For my reports, I use the values from the Plat Map…such as 100’ x 120’…which equals 12,000 sf.
BUT Realist and the Public Records often show something like 11,484 sf.
In the past I would show 12,000 sf, but the AMC software would send it back as wrong and they would point to the Realist (or whatever data source they use) and make me change it to 11,484 sf.
How are you dealing with such simple data that does not match?
My response was this:
- Find new clients. The AMC’s who demand you change site size in reports are amateurs.
- The ‘survey’ or a plat map with dimensions trumps anything Realist has. Read #1 again.
- County records with site size indicated also trumps Realist. Read #1 again.
- The “plat maps” in my area shown on the Assessor web sites never show dimensions. So in my reports I have a statement used on the Dimension line: “Not on Plat Map. Size from (CoRcds) (Survey) or (Realist as a last resort)” – whichever applies. In the Size field, I use whatever that particular source indicates. I never get any push back for this reporting procedure.
- By the way…..Dimensions of a site is another one of the DUMB entries on these outdated forms. If you are working with an irregular shaped lot, what difference do the line dimensions mean to anyone? No one can replicate a lot just from the dimensions alone (unless the dimensions of sides are EXACTLY the same, either as a square or in pairs – or perhaps an equilateral triangle)… without knowing the angle of the intersecting lines.
- If you are getting constant push back from amateurs, you should add a separate page into your report, or perhaps as the first page in your Addendum, in minimum 18pt bold typeface in red that says something like this…
SINGULAR PUBLIC RECORDS, MLS, REALIST AND OTHER SECONDARY SOURCES FOR PROPERTY DATA ARE NOT NECESSARILY CORRECT.
THE APPRAISER HAS RESEARCHED MULTIPLE DATA SOURCES AND HAS ENTERED ITEMS IN THIS REPORT THAT ARE BELIEVED TO REPRESENT THE SUBJECT SITE AND OTHER DETAILS AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE.
THE APPRAISER WILL NOT MODIFY THIS REPORT AFTER SUBMITTAL UNLESS THE CHANGE REQUESTOR CAN PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION FROM SEVERAL SOURCES THAT CONTRADICTS INFORMATION THE APPRAISER HAS REPORTED.
- The Unbiased Reality of Census Tract Data Dump… Open Letter to FHFA - August 15, 2023
- Isn’t that Just PAVEY! PAVE Response and Marcia Fudge - August 8, 2023
- ‘Pesky’ Words. Keeping Appraisers out of Language Purgatory - July 26, 2023