The no qualified appraisal needed will invite problems including mh quality fraud.

It completely differs from State to State. While I currently do primarily lending and litigation work, I was a Certified Assessor in Wisconsin for 17 years and can cite Chapter 70 of the State Statutes forwards and backwards.

First, Wisconsin is one of only 3 States that statutorily mandates interior inspections for ad valorem purposes. While this effectively means one would think GLA measurements would be relatively accurate, nothing could be further from the truth. The Assessment manual states ” a 1/2 story is 75% of the first floor footprint and an attic is 50% of the first floor footprint”. Kind of a “facts over truth” thing.
I’ve spent hours explaining this to local real estate practitioners to no avail. The major issue here is most still rely on this information as “accurate”. And with liability issues over the past decade or so, most Realtors simply cite GLA as derived from assessment records as opposed to literally measuring the property themselves. Either way, no uniformity.

So, the HUGE issue here is, when completing an assignment where you’ve personally measured your subject to ANSI Standards, what are you comparing it to? Apples to apples? Typically not. While a lot of site data is more accurate these days due to GIS systems, even that isn’t always accurate and can conflict with assessment data and legal descriptions. I typically pick one of the three and maintain throughout the report for as much consistency as is reasonably possible.

Standardized data relative to GLA seems a little “utopian” to an old geezer like me, but I agree we need to start somewhere. And it would sure make life a heck of a lot easier in dealing with parties that believe real property value is always tied to price-per-square-foot. To date, I guess I’ve just been trying to complete perfect appraisals in an imperfect world.

[ The problem is that state regulatory agencies have and still do cite tax cards as ‘official sources’. I have seen state complaints in which the regulators have said (cited individuals) “You should have used the tax card data for the comparable sales. MLS is not reliable…..”]

All I can say is “Wow”. That’s how government works. Government agencies trust other government agencies over competent professionals who work in the private sector, even though those same agencies don’t really understand the how and whys of what each sister agency is doing. Maybe they should just call and talk to someone from their local tax administration who could fully explain what we actually do and what our data is used for.

I realize that I have a unique perspective due to my dual career as both a self-employed appraiser and as a tax appraiser. Until I started working for the county, I assumed, incorrectly, that what is listed on the tax card was “official” and usually right. I quickly came to realize how wrong I was, but the reasons why are what suprised me the most. I’ll give you a specific example.

In one particular county they would list the size of a homesite as a decimal. Say, .45 acres. Now as an appraiser, you would calculate that as 19,602 sf. It wasn’t until I reviewed the actual legal description that I began to see discrepancies. The actual site size might be .58 acres. When I brought this up with my supervisor, he revealed to me that the site size on the tax card was generated by the CAMA software based on a formula which would adjust for size, depth, and shape of the lot. Nowhere on the card was the actual lot size shown, however real estate agents and other appraisers (including myself) would use the lot size presented on the tax card and not bother to verify the size by the only real official document, the legal description in the recorded deed.

In an even funnier case, a national company which provided tax data to everyone, including Zillow, would incorrectly list every house in the county as having a basement. This was because they could not understand the tax card and the CAMA software codes. What they mistakenly saw as BASE M on the card was our internal code for Base Unit which was tied into our sketch program to determine above grade areas. Frustrated realtors and appraisers who used that data would call our office to tell us that “you show this property as having a basement when I was just there and I know it does not”.

My advice to both appraisers and real estate agents who might read this is to read the documentation provided from your county tax office which explains what is on the tax card and how to read them. In my state of North Carolina, it is provided in a document called the “Schedule of Values”, but it might differ from state to state. After reading that, if you have any questions, then call and talk to an appraiser in the tax office and ask questions. Most tax appraisers are very nice people and will gladly answer any questions you might have. Remember, they are public employees and they work for you. As long as you are polite and courteous, they will help you.

Great info Thomas! Thank you for clarifying it so well.

The problem is that state regulatory agencies have and still do cite tax cards as ‘official sources’. I have seen state complaints in which the regulators have said (cited individuals) “You should have used the tax card data for the comparable sales. MLS is not reliable.”

Experienced appraisers know to dig deeper when we have an apparent discrepancy. Often a simple phone call resolves the issues. The next problem being the misguided notion that we are forbidden from talking to agents due to some completely misunderstood application of confidentiality obligations.

I use commercially supplied “tax” data to unofficially confirm my own measurements; and absent inexplicable disparities with comparable sales to reinforce (or refute) my belief that I have the correct data.

When my County (Los Angeles) used to sell daily data tapes in the early days of PCs (before hard drives) the data was pretty reliable with respect to documentary transfer stamps. Originally built GBA/GLA was also pretty reliable.

It was unpermitted additions and remodels not picked up that resulted in problems. Along with outdated zoning predating city incorporation, multiple parcel sales, site areas and frequently land use codes conflicting with actual property uses. Im not faulting the County. Just pointing out a need to accept all data with a grain of salt until it is credibly confirmed.

Like everything else, County records (and CIty records too) are only tools to be weighted & used only to the extent they are reasonbaly deemed accurate.

What the public needs to understand and licensed appraisers as well, is that tax cards and tax records are not “official” records or documents. They do not certify anything. All they are is a representation of how your property was valued using the data presented on the card. The tax records are provided mainly in an effort to be transparent to the public and so that the users can view and correct any incorrect or wrong data. It should not be relied on by anyone except for the purposes of tax assessment.

The reasons why tax data often differs from MLS data is because of how and why it is collected in the first place. No tax appraiser will ever go into someone’s home to measure it because of the legal liability to the county. The only exceptions are for tax disputes that are elevated by an appeal from the owner.

The greatest differences usually arise due to the CAMA computer software that tax offices use. The oftentimes legacy software, which was probably initially designed in the 1970s or 80s, limits the data and the formats that it can take. That is why there are no national standards, nor should there be since many individual counties cannot afford to continuously upgrade this very expensive software.

If companies like Zillow and AVM providers use this data as their primary source, then they should explain its limitations to their customers and how it could degrade the accuracy of their products. Simply put, it was never intended for this type of use.

If you are an appraiser or real estate agent, you should not rely on this data either without doing proper due diligence, because ultimately, it’s your license on the line. Tax offices are exempt from liability if they get the area of a dwelling wrong or miss various features, you might not be so lucky.

Your article assumes however that ‘the art’ or real estate appraisal is not under direct attack, as it is by such organizations Black Knight and their nifty new hybrid. In their new product, a computer program selects all the comparables to be used. One explanation recently offered to an appraiser was “it uses FACTS, and doesn’t rely on appraiser opinions.”

Their advocates of this new ‘system’ also reportedly told an appraiser this is the future. You have to get on board. It wasn’t mere hyperbole. It was intended to be coercive.

I bring this up because it demonstrates an automation direction already being seen in the “valuation” of property; and its potential for having already been strong-armed out into the appraisal world. Anyone remember the article on Abena Horton and alleged racism producing a ‘low’ value on her property?

Other posters wondered about her employment as an attorney for Black Knight and whether it had anything to do with her (as yet) unsupported or undisclosed support for her allegations. For Black Knight to be in the process of a major marketing push for their new online hybrid product that ELIMINATES the appraiser’s judgment in comp selection stretches coincidence credibility.

I think a uniform GLA policy is brilliant. Ultimately, it should be adopted by all. Unfortunately in the interim, I think valid data verification is playing second fiddle to self-serving automation shortcuts that seek to eliminate professional judgment by appraisers, in favor of computerized valuations.

Valuations that have proven themselves to be abysmal failures in all forms tried to date. Let us all know how/if we can help you.