A corner lot in a retail district often sells for more per square foot. What most commonly explains this?
Correct Answer
B) Two street frontages improve access and exposure
Why this is correct: In a retail context, a corner lot's premium value primarily comes from having frontage on two streets, which increases visibility, signage exposure, and customer access from multiple directions. Why the other choices are wrong: "Corner lots always contain more usable area" is false; shape and setbacks can reduce usable area. "Corner locations carry lower property taxes" is not generally true; taxes are based on assessed value. "Zoning permits taller buildings on corner lots" may occur but is not a universal or most common explanation. Exam tip: For retail, value drivers are access, exposure, and traffic. Corner lots excel on all three.
Why This Is the Correct Answer
Two street frontages increase visibility and ease of access, supporting higher retail sales, higher rent and therefore a higher price per square foot.
Why the Other Options Are Wrong
Option A: Corner lots always contain more usable area
Corner lots are not systematically larger. Corner influence concerns exposure and access rather than area.
Option C: Corner locations carry lower property taxes
Property taxes follow assessed value rather than lot configuration. Corner position does not reduce them.
Option D: Zoning permits taller buildings on corner lots
Height limits are set by zoning district rather than by a parcel's corner position.
Two Frontages, Two Advantages
Two Frontages, Two Advantages — seen from both streets and entered from both.
How to use: Trace the chain: exposure to sales, sales to rent, rent to land price. That is what corner influence actually is.
Exam Tip
Corner influence reverses in residential districts, where the same two frontages reduce privacy and usable area.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- -Assuming corner influence is always positive
- -Attributing the premium to lot size
- -Applying a standard percentage rather than deriving it from paired sales
Concept Deep Dive
Analysis
Corner influence in a retail district comes from what two street frontages do for a business. Exposure doubles, since the site is visible to traffic on both streets and signage can face both. Access improves, because customers can enter and exit from either street and turning movements are easier. Both effects translate into higher sales volume for a retail tenant, which supports higher rent, which supports a higher land price per square foot — the value chain runs from utility through income to price. The distractors each propose something that is not generally true: corner lots are not systematically larger, taxes follow assessed value rather than shape, and zoning height limits apply by district rather than by corner position. It is also worth knowing that corner influence is not universally positive. In residential districts a corner lot often sells at a discount, because it carries more street exposure, less privacy, two frontages of maintenance and setback requirements on two sides that reduce usable area.
Background Knowledge
Corner influence reflects the exposure and access advantages of two street frontages, which support higher retail rents and land prices. In residential districts corner lots often carry a discount for reduced privacy and greater setback area.
Real-World Application
An appraiser valuing a retail pad extracts corner influence from paired sales, finding an 18 percent premium per square foot over interior lots in the same district.
More land-or-site-valuation Questions
Under which condition is the land residual technique most applicable?
What is the appraiser's obligation when a site's legal description does not match its apparent physical boundaries?
Why can the same physical parcel carry different values in two assignments?
A site differs from land in that a site is best described as which of the following?
In a built-up area where no vacant land has sold for years, which approach to site value is the usual fallback?
How is entrepreneurial profit treated in the subdivision development method?
A land comparable sold 18 months ago in a market rising about 4 percent a year. What adjustment direction applies?
In a land residual analysis for a proposed office development, the appraiser estimates total annual net operating income (NOI) will be $1,250,000. The improvement value, derived via the cost approach, is $15,000,000. Market evidence indicates a 7.0% overall capitalization rate is appropriate for similar improved properties. What is the indicated land value?
A developer plans a 36-lot residential subdivision on raw land. Each lot is expected to sell for $85,000. Total development costs (excluding land) are $1,420,000, including $220,000 for entrepreneurial incentive. The developer requires a 12% annual yield on invested capital over a 3-year development period. Using the subdivision development method, what is the maximum price the developer should pay for the land if all lots sell at the projected price and timing?
In applying the land residual technique to a proposed subdivision, an appraiser estimates that the time required to fully absorb all lots will be 6 years. The developer requires a 10% annual yield on invested capital. Which discounting approach is most appropriate for converting future net proceeds to present value?
People Also Study
Valuation Principles & Procedures
25% of exam
Property Description & Analysis
20% of exam
Market Analysis & Highest/Best Use
15% of exam
Appraisal Math & Statistics
15% of exam
USPAP (Ethics & Standards)
15% of exam