Why is the appraiser saying it’s only 1,400 sq ft? Tax Records shows the home is 600 sq ft larger. This issue comes up ALL the time, so let’s talk about it.
MY BIG POINT: I can’t speak for every market across the country, but I’ll say there can be a difference between what the building department has on file for a house and what is listed in the Assessor’s Records. In my market Realist is what we call Tax Records and that data comes from the Assessor. In my experience it is usually pretty good, but sometimes it’s completely off because it doesn’t actually reflect what is permitted. This means we need to look to a source that does (or should) keep reliable records on building permits. And that source would be the building department instead of the Assessor.
The truth: The Assessor’s records are generally reliable, but I’m just saying sometimes they’re not. Why is this? At times it’s as simple as the original builder not turning in accurate information when a house was built. Or maybe an owner took out permits but official records were never updated. Of course we’ve all seen instances where the tax roll shows two units on one lot, but there’s really just one house nowadays. Let’s not forget sometimes owners do an addition without permits, so the Assessor might actually be correct even though the house is technically larger or has even sold on MLS as a larger home. For reference, here are ten reasons why an appraiser’s sketch might be different.
TWO SITUATIONS ON MY DESK:
1) Garage included in the square footage: I recently measured a house for a Realtor that was about 1,100 sq ft despite Tax Records stating it was nearly 1,600 sq ft. Based on my sketch it looks like the Assessor had the garage included in the square footage for whatever reason. I’ve definitely seen basements included in the square footage too.
2) Non-permitted area included: I’m also working on something where the tax roll shows an area at nearly 2,500 sq ft but about half this space isn’t actually permitted. Look, most of the time Tax Records is pretty much right (especially in tract areas), but in this case it’s scarily inaccurate. One of the problems is in Sacramento County home owners can “correct” property characteristics in Tax Records by submitting a sketch from an appraiser. I get the idea here, but what if the area in the sketch was not actually permitted (and the appraiser hopefully disclosed that in the report)? It would seem like verifying square footage as permitted would be a nice touch when adding square footage into the tax roll, but I’m afraid that doesn’t always happen. It certainly didn’t happen in the case on my desk and I’ve seen many other instances where an area that was not permitted ended up being reflected as square footage in the Assessor’s information (and then Realist).
UPDATE: The chief appraiser at the Sacramento County Assessor’s office commented on my post and I wanted to link to it here. I think he provides some helpful context (and he’s a really nice guy).
Closing advice: If something doesn’t seem right about the square footage, start digging further. Most of the time you’re likely going to be able to trust records, but sometimes they’re going to be off. So when something doesn’t smell right about the size, quality of work, setbacks, etc… it’s time to call the building department to see what permits are on file. I never rat out an owner either, so I don’t call and say, “Hey, this house measured 2,300 sq ft, but what do your records say?” Nope. I would call and ask, “Can you help a brother out? What do your records show for square footage and anything else that has been permitted?” Also, if you’re in Sacramento, here is a link that shows building permits online (you’re welcome). Lastly, remember that it’s not enough that permits were pulled. Were permits finaled? That’s the real question.
I hope this was helpful. This could honestly be a dissertation and what I’ve written only scrapes the surface. Please add your comments below.
Questions: Any stories to share or advice about relying on Tax Records (or not)? How is your market different than mine? Anything to add?
If you liked this post, subscribe by email (or RSS). Thanks for being here.
Hi Ryan,
Always appreciate your information as a longtime local appraiser for the Peninsula & San Fran. I have relatives in the Sac area, Lincoln, Rocklin, etc. This might be a bit unrelated to the topic on measurements, but wanted to get your opinion on something. I have a relative that recently bought a SFR in Lincoln. In checking Lincoln Crossing I noticed so many short sale listings & closings along with some recent foreclosures. What’s happening about that? Tough times in the Sac area? Just not sure what to attribute that quantity to.
Thanks
Sheri
Hi Sheri. Thanks for checking in. Distressed sales have pretty much bottomed out, so there’s really no place to go but up. This past year in the region we saw a very slight uptick in REOs (1.1% in 2018 to 1.4% of the market in 2019). For context, the uptick this year represents about 40 more bank-owned sales in the region, so this is not a significant number. But short sales are down and have definitely not increased in the region or in any of the counties I cover.
In Placer County last year the numbers were pretty sparse as only 0.3% of the market sold s short sales and 0.7% were bank-owned. Technically we saw an increase in REOs from 0.4% last year to 0.7% this year, but it’s really not much (18 total sales).
In short, this could just be a coincidence, though if we’re seeing a good number pop up it’s something we have to watch to understand over time. Otherwise distressed sales are very subdued. I have noticed a slight uptick lately and some REO brokers are telling me many are long-time loan modifications that have been in play for quite a while and are finally coming to fruition. To be fair I haven’t studied each sale, but it’s clear there have been slightly more REOs. It’s not a wave by any stretch. It’s on the radar though at least.
Hope that helps.
Ryan, thank you for posting this. In my market area, tax records are significantly off about 1/3 of the time. The errors in my area tend to be largest when the home has a second floor or a basement. Often, the county has not measured anything except the footprint and they guess where the garage cuts away. Also, we see newer homes where the plans were sent over at the time of permits, but the plans changed during construction so, although the changes were permitted, the assessor’s office does not receive the new information. We also see county measurements with sloppy rounding to the nearest foot on everything and squaring of angles resulting in tolerance stacking errors that are small in one instance but large when applied to the entire property. I would never purchase a house without measuring it first to make sure I’m getting what is advertised.
Thank you Gary. I’m so glad you mentioned this because lots of people look at Assessor figures as fact, but sometimes it’s purely an estimation. That’s wild to be off 1/3 of the time. It’s hard to say how much we are off here, though in tract areas it really is pretty solid.
Great post, Ryan, and one I like to write about. Our MLS is hit or miss when it comes to the accurate square. Of course, it all depends on the source of the square footage. Because agents rely on square footage to price a home (which is not always the best way to do it) it can throw off the value/list price. I did a not so scientific study about the time it took to sell a home and the sale price to list price ratio. As you might expect, the listings that had more accurate square footage from an appraiser or blueprints sold quicker and for a higher SP/LP ratio. This is why it is very important for agents to make sure they have the most accurate information possible.
Thanks Tom. Yeah, accuracy matters. I find at times it’s very difficult for a seller to come down from an accepted contract price when a home is discovered to actually be 200 sq ft smaller for instance. Unless we’re talking about a very large house, 200 square feet could definitely have caused buyers to offer less in the first place. I mention this because starting from a place of accuracy can help things run smoothly.
Fantastic post Ryan! Great points! Last year I appraised a home for a tax appeal. After measuring the home, I found that it was actually much larger than the assessor’s office reflected. Needless to say, my opinion of value was higher than the County’s increased assessed market value. So, my report didn’t help the homeowner. They were nice about it and totally understood. Thanks for your great thoughts as always!
Thanks Jamie. Well, at least the owner now knows the true size. I think I would probably rather have a larger home than saving money a few years on taxes. 🙂
For sure! I think that’s how they felt.?
Isn’t it funny that so many people want to claim ownership of data until it can’t be trusted. Then nobody is required to clean it or ensure accuracy.
Data ownership and stewardship go together. But when I add a bedroom, who owns the data (now 4 bedrooms)? Does CoreLogic own the data?
Can ‘o worms.
Inquiring [and geeky] minds…
Great comment Jay. Yeah, we always have to question the integrity of data. It seems our market is better off than many across the country, but we still have to know the issues and where to go when information is clearly incorrect.
I encountered a property that said 5 acres in Realist when in fact it’s only 2 acres. That can be easy to miss and accept as fact unless we actually look at the plat map. Yikes.
Ryan, great post , great topic. Down where I hang out, the builders have options on floor plans. Course the easy way is to make all the plan 3’s the same GLA whether that actually are or not. Several tracts are a big mess. I ended up creating a minor issue for an agent two years ago in this community because she priced the home as if it was 350 sf bigger than it actually was. She met me at the house, which I gave her 5 gold stars for, as most agents don’t have the time for me. Never understood that. So when my tablet automagically showed me the issue with GLA I went out and confirmed three long wall measurements and confirmed the issue. Then I dragged the RE agent around to watch the measurements and then the final tally. She was not pleased, but did admit that the home felt smaller to her. My reason for commenting on this is because I told the agent to listen their little voice in the back of their head. If they have been in the business long enough they should act on their concerns. Seller was not happy as he had to lower the price and that lead to a law suit with the original listing agent (prior sale two years before) and his agent when he bought the property and the prior seller. To say the least no one was happy as the current seller had to lower the price. Now that I think about it, I don’t remember getting a Christmas card from the buyer, don’t know his thoughts on the matter. Oh well. Enjoy and as always thanks
Thank you Brad. This is a great story and it’s important to read. This is exactly why it’s wise for real estate agents to disclose the source of the square footage and to be aware of liability. I know from an appraiser end I hear from E&O companies that many lawsuits are about square footage. I’m not a lawyer, so I cannot give legal advice. But I will say it’s likely not wise for the agent to measure the property himself/herself.
Sorry you didn’t get a Christmas card. 🙂
Happy New Year Ryan! The new home-vs- options square foot differences are often time difficult for sellers to comprehend too. Had one recently, Brad. No fun.
In fact, I’m working on a doozy now!
Brad you did an appraisal for me in Lake Mathews once. I really enjoyed working with you and always remember how you took the time to answer my questions.
Have a great 2020 gentlemen.
Thanks Cindy. Small world here. That’s great.
Hi Brad,
Do you know what the outcome of that lawsuit was? I am in the exact same situation where the original homeowner listed the house for 2093sqft after owning the house from 2008-2015 when I purchased the home. Fast forward to 2020 our house is under contract and the new appraisal came in at 1,866 sqft which is actually accurate as I then went and measured it to validate the difference. Looking back at my 2015 appraisal I paid $14,500 higher than another property (exact floorplan match) due to the difference in sqft. Coincidentally that same house sold in May 2020 and was used as a comparable again, but this time without the $ difference based on sqft… I feel like I got screwed when purchasing the house due to misrepresentation from the original homeowner and the appraiser not actually measuring the house (almost all measurements were incorrect). Who do I take to court? Is it my agent, the listing agent, prior homeowner, lender (as they hired the appraiser)… did the builder not submit the correct floor plans (and sqft) which all of this is based on?
Also this is a huge learning lesson for myself and my wife… read and review everything and measure twice.
Hi Michael. I appreciate you jumping in here and I’m so sorry to hear about your situation. I don’t know if Brad or Jim will see these comments as it depends on whether they are subscribed to the thread or not. But I will say you are asking legal questions and I’m not sure they are going to be able to answer those since both of these guys work in the valuation space.
Hi Ryan yes I am still active in the Thread. As to Mr. Ginther’s situation. You are in a situation that is going to be difficult, because if you enter into some sort of potential litigation issue it might create an issue for the buyer’s lender to continue with the loan as there is a possibility of a cloud on title with any pending litigation. Now full disclosure I am not an Attorney, I am not tall enough, smart enough or good looking enough to be an attorney, consequently I am just an appraiser, but I do work in the field as an expert witness from time to time. I would suggest that at the very least you search quickly for an experienced Real Estate Law Attorney with at least 10 to 15 years of experience as that puts them through the 2008 recession and all the RE issues that occurred from that time line (2008-2010). Seek her/his guidance for a 30 minute or one hour consultation and bring all of the data that you have access to and even that which you think might not be relevant so that he / she can see the case you are describing in its entirety. Then then can give you direction on which way to proceed and how to be protect your interest.
Hello Mr. Ginther,
I have been following this thread and doing some research. It would appear that when the Montauk subdivision was originally built by KB Home there was a standard Plan 2093, and that plan was associated with your parcel back in 2008. However, KB Home also offered a non-standard Plan 1870 (labeled “Built to Order” on the brochure). I can only surmise that your lot may have been pre-plotted for Plan 2093, and the original buyer or KB Home opted for Plan 1870 instead (contains 1,870 Square Feet per plan). Unfortunately we did not pick up the change. This is not an unusual occurrence in new home subdivisions. However, before we update your property record, I do want to confirm whether or not your home has the Loft or 4th Bedroom option on the second floor. Please direct an email to my attention (Jim Glickman) at assessor@saccounty.net; or post your response to this thread. Once corrected, the change will show up on our Parcel Viewer tool overnight. However, as stated in my February 13, 2020 post, that does not mean third-party records, MLS, or websites will update right away. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.
Thanks Jim.
Great post Ryan! This issue is near and dear to my heart. This is common in my area of Southwest Riverside county, California! Lots of new construction where the builder only reports the standard floorplan an doesn’t update with the options chosen by the buyer. Custom homes where the stairs and open space included perhaps by the county appraiser not reading the blue prints closely enough or just being reported incorrectly by the builder. Either way I find myself going down this rabbit hole fairly often. I have found that if there are no permits on file and I cant get my hands on a builders brochure, which I have collected everywhere I go over the years, or cant get it from a seller or agent, I go down to the city and pull the records or call the County appraiser if the subject was built prior to the city maintaining records. Most of the time I can resolve the inconsistency but I always wish I had charged more for the extra time 😉 More importantly I have found that these inconsistencies when not vetted by the agent or seller/buyer who rarely want to measure themselves or pay for a professional measurement have really hurt the values in these neighborhoods!
Thank you for the commentary Erika. I really appreciate it. This can be very time-consuming for the appraiser of course. I wish data was more perfect, but it’s at least good to know what the issues are. I find similar issues sometimes in my market with improper square footage reported. Of course if on paper it says the house is much smaller there are many owners who would not report it due to tax consequences. That’s a different post though… 🙂
Thank you once again for your invaluable information and insights. As a real estate broker, I look to your posts for real information!
Thank you sincerely Sharon.
Sac assessor doesn’t do an onsite measure any longer. Permit records are sketchy before mid 80s scans and electronic records. There are older homes without permit records.
Yolo as explained to me by staff, averages age of improvements. They list a 1930s home was listed as 1958 build. Like “The Irishman” movie…. CGI only masks the surface…. those internals are still 1930s.
Thank you Jeff. It’s sobering to hear this. I’ve also heard similar things about estimations. Yolo data used to be very difficult to come by and appraisers used to have to pay I think a few dollars per comp for the information. It’s been years since we had to do that, so I’ve forgotten now what the cost was.
I think it’s good to remember the Assessor exists to levy taxes, so they seem to tax people based on what is there. So we ought to be cautious about thinking that just because it is there it is permitted (ideally it would be that way).
Any way to use this to my advantage?
I noticed the appraisal showed a larger square footage than actual. I think it’s where the house has a “little” indent (and they probably measured straight across). Not sure if there would be any recourse against them or that I’d want to. This coincidentally is where we would like to push the wall out since the roof line wouldn’t be affected. My real questions are: 1) Would this save me money when completing the permit and this project, 2) Am I getting charged more in taxes because they valued it at more square footage?
Hi Jevon. Thanks for the comment. In my mind there’s isn’t much advantage in having a higher square footage than you actually have in Tax Records. After all, it seems like during a sale you would need to disclose what you know about the property anyway. Realistically if you went ahead and enclosed that area it sounds like your square footage would match the Assessor’s records. Though it wouldn’t likely match the building department’s records (which is likely more important). In other words enclosing the space doesn’t all of the sudden make it permitted.
One big issue here is when homes are too large in Tax Records it is very possible people are paying too much in property taxes. This is where I would absolutely get it corrected if the difference seemed big enough. A few square feet is obviously not likely a big deal, but hundreds or thousands of square feet might make a difference. I’m a big fan of paying our fair share of taxes and no more.
I’d say its less than 200 sq. ft.
If I did the “addition”, I would plan on permitting it, so not sure the details in how permits work with the county trying to raise appraisal values and therefore taxes.
(I too believe that we shouldn’t pay anymore than required.)
Hi Ryan,
Love your blog and as a former fee appraiser and now tax assessor. I encounter taxpayers request record corrections for various reasons. In my county the really old paper/manual files tend to be fairly accurate unless there have been additions or demolitions. Back then the appraisers actually went in the house. Over the last 30 years or so our office saves the architect plans and will usually go off them, but as stated we very often we do not get revised or updated plans when the builder or purchaser make changes. Where I see the most mistakes are on altered properties such as homes with additions and conversions, especially if the owner was a contractor/builder. Our office strives to keep correct files. I have had taxpayers come in after a purchase with their appraisal in hand asking to correct our records for whatever reason; they ask if we will lower their assessment because of such and such. Usually our standard answer is you paid X amount for the property, you saw it and walked through it, regardless of what our records say you knew what you were buying. As you stated we are a taxing agency that reports data on a paid contract to services like Realist, not a governing agency. The assessor’s office only reports what’s there, it doesn’t tell you what you can/can’t have…. The tax assessments are established when the property is built or purchased, incorrect square footage would basically only come into play in a prop 8 situation during times of downturn….
Hi Corina. Excellent commentary. I appreciate the addition here and this helps make the post better.
I’ll say I hope my post did not come across as negative against the Assessor’s office. This certainly isn’t a hit piece. I’m hopeful people will walk away with the point that you just made that the role of the Assessor is different and there are reasons why records may not be the same as the building department. While generally accurate in my market, it’s still so important not to take what we see in records as meaning it is permitted. My sense is that happens very regularly in the real estate profession. “But the Assessor’s records say….” Do permits say the same thing though? That’s always a good question.
Thanks again. Great stuff.
Oh, I’m not defensive at all and I apologize if I came across that way too…. honestly, there are soo many things to tax assessing. It’s actually surprising how much the general public really doesn’t not know about how their property taxes are calculated. Personally, I have noticed the good and the bad in record keeping at the assessors office. But always a willingness to correct with documentation. You’re correct in saying that just because it’s there doesn’t mean it was permitted. When I was a fee appraiser I used to have a canned comment about how tax records are not always accurate and that I would trust my measurements and inspection. Have a good one!
You didn’t come across that way at all Corina. I think I was responding more in general just to clarify that I’m not targeting Assessors here. When I was writing this post I wondered if I might get a bit of backlash or if my comments would somehow be perceived as negative. So your comment just reminded me to speak into that. Again, I really appreciate your perspective. Thanks again.
Hi Ryan,
Great post on an obviously never-ending subject. This is always interesting to me having been an assessor for 17 years and a fee appraiser for over 27 years, not the least of which is how this can vary dramatically from area to area. I’ve had the pleasure of discussing this with assessors from numerous states while taking CAE Designation courses, but can only speak knowledgably to my State of Wisconsin. This is a little long-winded, but…
All states appear to have a central authority, typically the DOR, that mandates and/or promulgates property assessment procedures, not the least of which is building measurement and that’s the case in Wisconsin. In theory, this should “standardize” the process. Of note is that Wisconsin is 1 of only 3 states that assess properties at a “municipal” (jurisdictional) level. While most states assess at a county level, what this means for us is that all 1,850 distinct jurisdictions must have individual statutory assessors. I believe the amount of Certified Assessor’s in the state dropped below 600 last year. Further, Wisconsin is one of only a few states that require a full physical inspection (interior and exterior) for assessment purposes. While owner’s don’t have to legally provide entry, statutes do provide for a “doomage” (guesstimate) assessment in these cases and the owner can’t contest that assessed value. Obviously, with a limited pool of certified professionals, there are a number of assessment companies and individuals that contract in multiple jurisdictions.
The state allows for a “one-time 90 day licensure” of unqualified individuals that, in theory, allows them to be licensed during a training period. It’s become common practice to conduct revaluations during summer months and hire college students, get them a 90 license and let them conduct the property inspection, to include measuring. I’ll let you guess the logic and validity of that.
That said, the Wisconsin Property Assessment Manual promulgates how to measure dwellings and this hasn’t changed for decades. Obviously, the first story is pretty simple. From there, and based upon photos of eve heights and gable ends provided in the manual, an “attic” area is 50% of the first floor area and a 1/2 story is 75% of the first floor area. Realtors (and agents) virtually always use assessment records, generally for liability reasons. This creates significant issues for appraisers. If you adopt and measure by ANSI Standards you’ll virtually always have conflicting data. That’s the easy part. Now, when comparing comparables, you’re almost always comparing your apple to oranges. Fun stuff!
To add a little insult to injury, over 1,400 of the jurisdictions are unincorporated and many for the longest time didn’t require building permits, especially if the owner was conducting their own work. This has been slowly changing over the past 10+/- years but, to date, since these changes are effectively legal and require no “finals or sign-off”, it’s up to the appraiser to determine, as best as possible based upon readily observable conditions, the quality and workmanship in including this in the appraisal report.
Always fun!
Thanks Mark as one of the fee panel world appraisers with no insight behind the current this was some great info. Thank you for taking the time. Even though I ain’t in Wisconsin, still some good info. Enjoy.
Mark, this is a golden comment. I really appreciate your insight and commentary. Thank you sincerely. This is the cherry on top of my post to show there is more to the story and we have to think beyond the numbers we see in Tax Records. It’s critical to know where they came from AND why they might be different in the real world. Thank you again.
Having worked fee and assessor in CA and fee in TX, I can say with zero hesitation that any home built prior to 2000? sometimes 2010 should be suspect in GLA in any non-subdivision location.
I have seen and processed GLA errors where properties were measured right but the math in the file worksheet was done wrong resulting in 30 years of 500′ GLA error. (thank goodness for electronic sketch calculations)
I have seen pictures stapled in a file of fireman putting out a fire on a house that got a calamity claim(black and white in the 60’s)
I have seen assessors try to measure with google earth and count umbrellas as GLA to the tune of ~500′ error.
Lets not forget that builders of homes submit plans, builder changes footprint or otherwise, then the revised and corrected plans never come to assessor office.
And what if there is a feud(true story) between Building/Planning and Assessor and B/P refuses to send plans/permits to assessor.
And in those markets where there is not even a process to even obtain a building permit and GLA adds to tax rolls/tax value so that 600′ 1940’s house just outside of town now is 2500′ and 2 stories of Q2 after you quoted for a Q4 40’s cottage…
Havnt seen it all but Ive seen enough to know that every single report gets a comment about the errors of assessor office, builders, and GLA discrepancies and the appraiser on the ground with a tape in hand(laser) is the most accurate and relied on method of measurement for purposes of the report.
Oh-and everyone who measures follows standard ANSI measuring protocols-right?
LOL
ROFLOL
And thats also why a 2055 gets the same fee as a 1004 for anything built prior to 2010 thats not in a subdivision.
Oh-and the MLS, how many realtors hire an appraiser to pre-measure the house to verify?
How many auto-populate with online county records?
You do make assumptions in your reports that MLS/CR is right but wrong info changes results of your file?
Realtors-maybe its time to hire an ANSI appraiser to measure your listing to make sure GLA is right and to tell you which part of the GLA will be considered in an appraisal.
Thank you very much. I appreciate your perspective Mark.
I told this story in reply to one of Ryan’s blogs on this subject a few years ago. So if it sounds familiar…. Developer Robert C. Powell built subdivisions in Gold River back in the 20th century. Instead of naming the models Willow, Oak, Peach and Walnut, Powell gave his models numbers like the 1440, 1660, and the 1890. The model numbers had nothing do with the square footage but were on average 15% to 20% higher than the planned and permitted square footage. The smaller numbers corresponded to the smaller houses, the larger numbers corresponded to the larger houses and so on. As a result, most of the homes were recorded as having the square footage of the model number.
This bit me hard on the backside in 1999. I was a bank loan officer doing an employee loan for a higher up that had transferred in. I hired an appraiser I had used a few times before, but not much since. Sam used the Sacramento county records instead of measuring. When the executive learned of the inaccuracy too late to renegotiate his purchase deal, I got thoroughly chewed out.
As always Ryan your posts are insightful, educational, and helpful to all market participants (brokers/salespeople, appraisers, property owners, etc.). Given the emphasis on Sacramento County and the Office of the Assessor in your January 22, 2020 post (“Tax Records is not the definitive source for square footage”), I’d like the opportunity to respond and expand on a number of points you and your readers have made.
First, however, I believe it is important to point out that all property information maintained by the Office of the Assessor is for assessment purposes only. Although it is posted on our Parcel Viewer website tool, it is done so with a Data Disclaimer.
It should also be pointed out that our office maintains records on over 425,000 residential parcels (land, single-family, condominium, and two-to-four family). Unless called to our attention, specific parcel records are only updated when one of two events occurs – a change-in-ownership (i.e. sales) or new construction (usually via permits). In some cases, it has been 40 or more years since a record has been brought to our attention. As you pointed out in your post, the primary source for building information is the building department (County or respective City). If for whatever reason a permit is not issued, or pertinent and accurate permit information is not transmitted to the Assessor’s Office, then our record of the building improvement characteristics may not be the same as they may physically exist (and/or are reported by other sources).
Permitted vs. Non-Permitted
One of the Assessor’s primary roles is to locate (identify) all taxable property, and appraise/assess that property. One of the key roles of any appraiser is to understand the relevant characteristics of a property as viewed by the market or market participants. The Assessor’s staff is comprised of appraisers, and we see our role as being no different from any other appraiser. However, the Assessor’s role and that of its staff is not to make a legal determination as to whether or not an improvement is permitted (or legal). That is the role of the building department and it’s inspectors. To the extent possible we rely on building inspector notes when available. However, they are not our records, and they are not always readily available to our staff. In other words, there are times when our staff faces the same type of dilemma an independent fee appraiser may encounter when attempting to verify our data.
Even when we are in receipt of the original building permit and the associated building plans on newly constructed improvements these are not necessarily “as built” plans. Change-orders, amendments, and/or options selected off Master Plans (i.e. production homes) are not always reported to the building department and/or our office. Unfortunately we do not have the luxury of inspecting each and every newly constructed building improvement due to limitations on staffing and/or not being granted access by the property owner.
When we do discover an improvement (stand-alone building, addition or conversion) that is not associated with a known building permit, we review what we know about the improvement as to quality, quantity, workmanship and condition. We may perform a personal inspection (if permitted by the property owner) and/or obtain information from sources we may deem reliable. If the improvement is consistent in quality and workmanship with the balance of the property’s improvements, and is opined to contribute to the market value of the property, we document that improvement in our records and assess (value) it accordingly. Ultimately, we are recognizing how the market views the property, as would any appraiser.
Independent fee appraisers preparing appraisals for loan purposes may be charged with inspecting and reporting the property characteristics on the date of inspection, and to report non-permitted building improvements when discovered. If the property characteristics observed at time of inspection do not match the “assessor’s record” and/or that reported by MetroList (MLS), an appraiser should prominently disclose that discrepancy and explain how it was handled in the valuation. As will be pointed below, the “assessor” or “tax” property data populating MLS/Realist may not necessary match the data displayed in our Parcel Viewer tool.
In the first of the “two situations on my desk” you stated that the garage area was included in the living area found in the “Tax Records”. In all likelihood, our property records would show that a garage conversion (to living area) was permitted some time ago. As is very common, that space was demolished (without a specific permit) and the space was returned to use as garage parking without being brought to our attention.
In the “Closing Advice” section of your post you pointed to a building permits online link. Please be advised that link only pertains to properties located within the City of Sacramento, and does not relate to properties located in Unincorporated Sacramento County or other jurisdictions (cities) with the County.
MLS/Realist Property Data
Property data populating MLS/Realist (via MetroList) is collected and reformatted by CoreLogic after they obtain a data characteristic file from the County. It is our understanding that CoreLogic only updates property characteristics once a year (fall of each year). In the fall of 2018 it was discovered by the Sacramento County Assessor’s Office that CoreLogic was not utilizing the correct data fields in the data characteristic file, and as a result total living area and other relevant property characteristics were not being populated (reported) accurately in MLS/Realist (and other third-parties using the same data). The most common issues knowingly affected at least 60,000 improved residential parcels, and probably more with other related issues. Despite CoreLogic having the information they needed to reconcile a vast majority of the data discrepancies by November 2018, the data discrepancies continued. As a result of further and proactive efforts on our part, the data characteristics updated by CoreLogic in mid-September 2019 are now in effect. However, if the original listing entered into MLS prior to that date, it may still be populated with the older data.
Best Practices
The true “public” or “tax” record for building improvements can be found via our Parcel Viewer tool on our website (www.assessor.saccounty.net). Even more detailed information (breakdown) can be accessed via our public lobby computers, or by submitting an owner-executed Letter of Authorization (https://assessor.saccounty.net/Forms1/Letter%20of%20Authorization.pdf) to our counter staff. The latter allows an owner’s agent to view portions of our actual property record files. However, please advised that the “Tax” link in MLS and the related Property Detail Reports published by Realist are not the true “public” or “tax” records, and they too come with a disclaimer.
Understanding the Property Building Information
When viewing the Parcel Details for a specific property in Parcel Viewer there is a link to a PDF document named “Data Field Descriptions”. The link can be found in the lower portion of the Property Building Information panel. This document contains descriptions and explanations for respective data fields. This document was created to address some of the more common misunderstandings and misuse of the data.
Correcting/Updating Characteristics
If discrepancies are discovered in the data presented via our Parcel Viewer tool on our website there is an Email icon in the upper right-hand corner. Clicking on that icon will open a Comments window. In the “Comment Type” field there is a drop-down list which includes both “Property Building Information Correction” and “SQ FT Validation”. Completing and submitting this form will direct an email to our office for further investigation and validation (if supported). And as you stated in your post, there are other options available by going to the “Resources & Information” drop-down menu on our website and selecting either “For Real Estate Professionals” or “For Property Owners”.
In closing, I want to thank you for the opportunity to respond to your recent post. In our world of Big Data the importance of accurate property data cannot be understated. We at the Assessor’s Office strive each and every day to meet that challenge. We are always receptive to thoughtful input from property owners and real estate professionals in reaching that goal.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jim Glickman, MAI
Chief Real Property Appraiser
Real Property Division
Office of the Assessor
County of Sacramento
Mr. Clickman, curious did the Assessor office put out a notice on the discrepancy between your records and that of Corelogic in 2018.
Hi Brad – Since the discrepancy was in CoreLogic’s (i.e. Realist) representation of our data, we did not put out a notice. I believe that would have been their responsibility or that of their client (MetroList/MLS).
I agree with you fully. But from our side of the fence any news would be helpful. The world looks at the Assessor as the authority. And after 28 years in this business I understand what the Assessor office is up against. But since Corelogic is the 8000 lb. Gorilla in the room any input from the Assessor office would be of help to those of us in the field. Just my thought. And thank you for taking time out of your day to address Ryan’s initial blog and my question.
You’re one of the good guys Jim. I appreciate your thoughtful commentary and I have huge respect for you as an appraiser and the role you have played for so long in Sacramento not only in the Assessor’s Office, but as an educator at the college level.
I think you’ve given some very helpful context here that will hopefully make things more clear. In fact, I’ll link to your comment from within the post too.
Thank you again.
Hi Jim,
I am currently in contract to sell a property in Sacramento, Ca. When I originally purchased the home, the appraisal came back as a 2,093sqft home and included measurements. Fast forward 5 years and I am now selling that same home and the buyers appraisal came back at 1,866sqft. I am at a loss of words, as I went to measure the home and sure enough it is 1,866sqft… almost all of the appraisers measurements were off. I paid roughly $14,500 more than I should have for the house and now as I am going to sell it, it appraised from $16,000 less than the offer price due to the lower sqft house. Surprisingly, one of the recent sales in 2015 and 2020 are for the same floor plan one block away which I am basing these numbers on… as both appraisers used that house for a comparable… however, the first appraiser in 2015 said a different house was the best house to use as a comparable as the floorplan was the same (which was not the case). What kind of recourse do I have at this point… I am getting screwed on the front and back end of this property.
Michael Ginther
Sacramento Resident
(devils advocate)
I would venture to suggest that irregardless of GLA or $/foot, my hope is that you walked into the house, enjoyed, liked, or appreciated its size, did not complain at the time to realtor/appraiser/seller about perceived differences in marketed vs actual GLA and moved in and lived there.
I can only ASSume that you felt comfortable paying your purchase price for what you observed.
I can only assume that during your entire stay there, you did not comment on or complain about perceived differences in GLA to recorded or observed GLA to anyone.
I would suggest thinking long and hard about moving forward with a lawsuit as any real and competent defense attorney would probably bring this up.
If not-good luck, but I would ALSO suggest that you contact local assessor and demand they come out and measure and correct county records.
Mr. Ginther – I may have replied to Ryan comment instead of directly replying to your original post. Please scroll to my separate post on this date. Thank you.
I started work as a full-time real estate appraiser prior to licensing and FIRREA or Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act way back in 1984. I worked in Denver and talked to appraisers that caused this legislation to be enacted – Anyway, that’s another LONG story. I wanted to relate my story about assessor accuracy with property size. I retired with Cert General license and have been on gov panels for government santioned entities for residential appraisals AND have crafted commercial appraisal on every type property you can imagine – Prisons and funeral homes some of the most obscure. My main body of work was as an eminent domain specialist. That’s my background.
The measurement story takes place in Jefferson County, CO and I am being trained to “measure” houses by the county’s lead field appraiser. He had been doing this for 12 years and used the same equipment clipboard, work boots and “tape” he always had was the same. We were measuring a house that was being finished up after construction and the builder was on site watching us as we called out the building measurements and said we were WAY OFF. We check our measuring tape against his and ours was 14 feet short at 50 feet extended – WoW! This lead appraiser had used this same tape for years and asked me not to tell anyone.
I appraised a warehouse in the same county that the owner wanted to sell and I had to tell him that his building was 40% larger than what the assessor stated. The brokers had a hard time trying to sell a building where they could not advertising the building size. The owner refused to tell the county fearing back tax retribution and a certain tax increase. Ethical dilemmas
Thank you Ed. How in the world could the tape have been short? That’s wild to hear. I appreciate you sharing. It’s unreal that the building was that much larger also. I’m not surprised to hear there was a struggle to convince others when it was listed. That just goes to show how much we tend to trust numbers that are in print.
Thanks Ryan! Just read your post. I purchased a house in El Dorado County and the county assessor record was what we were told for square footage. Come to find out when installing new floors that the two rooms we asked whether they were additions and were told no are actually additions. It seems the owner had the assessor add on the square footage for the additions, and there were never any building permits pulled for adding that square footage. The two rooms added were not even close to code and could have collapsed the house at any point. How do counties add square footage to the record that’s not permitted?
Hi Kim. Sorry to hear about your situation. I can’t speak to the county’s process here, but I will say I’ve seen various counties add square footage based on the sketch of an appraiser. I’ve only seen this happen with the Assessor – not the building department. The trouble is if I sketch area intended for living space (while clearly disclosing permit status being unknown), that doesn’t make the area permitted all of the sudden. But we definitely still see the square footage added. I think this is a tough spot. I just consulted with an owner who wants an accurate square footage for his listing, but I told him that the sketch doesn’t mean it is now permitted.