A downtown site's zoning height limit is reduced from six stories to three. Buyers in this market had been paying for six-story development potential. What effect on land value is most supportable?
Correct Answer
A) Land value is likely lower, by an amount requiring analysis
If the height limit was binding and the removed capacity was financially feasible and valuable to buyers, reducing it can reduce the site’s development value. The amount requires market and feasibility analysis; six to three stories does not by itself imply that floor area or land value is halved.
Why This Is the Correct Answer
Option A is correct because losing development capacity that buyers had been paying for is likely to reduce the site's value, but the size of the loss requires analysis. Halving the stories does not by itself mean floor area or land value is halved. Market evidence and feasibility study are needed to measure the effect.
Why the Other Options Are Wrong
Option B: Land value increases by 50%, since the lower height reduces risk
Option B, that value increases by 50% because lower height reduces risk, is wrong because buyers in this market were paying for six-story potential, so losing it is expected to hurt value. The fixed 50% increase also has no support in the facts.
Option C: The change cannot affect a site because no building exists
Option C, that the change cannot affect a site with no building, is wrong because vacant land is valued largely for what can be built on it. A zoning change that reduces allowable development directly affects that potential.
Option D: Land value falls by 50%, in proportion to the lost floors
Option D, that value falls by 50% in proportion to the lost floors, is wrong because land value does not move in simple proportion to permitted stories. The effect depends on whether the extra height was feasible and how buyers value it, which requires analysis.
Less zoning, likely less value
Taking away development rights buyers paid for usually lowers land value, but the amount must be measured, not guessed by ratio.
How to use: Use this when a question describes a zoning change and asks about the effect on land value.
Exam Tip
Be cautious of answers that assume value changes in exact proportion to a physical or legal change; supportable answers call for market analysis.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- -Assuming land value falls by the same percentage as allowable floors
- -Believing zoning changes do not affect vacant land
Concept Deep Dive
Analysis
This question tests how a zoning change that reduces development potential affects land value. If buyers were paying for six-story potential and the height limit was binding, cutting it to three stories likely lowers value. However, the amount must be measured through market and feasibility analysis, not assumed by a simple proportion.
Background Knowledge
Highest and best use must be legally permissible, physically possible, financially feasible and maximally productive. Zoning sets the legally permissible uses and intensity, so a down-zoning can reduce the most productive use. The value effect depends on market demand for the lost capacity.
Real-World Application
A city lowers the height limit on a downtown block from six stories to three. An appraiser valuing a vacant parcel there studies sales and feasibility of three-story projects to estimate how much less buyers will now pay for the site.
More Land/Site Questions
How should an appraiser account for a site's access to public sewer compared with competing sites that require septic systems?
Which fact, if supported by competitive-market evidence, most directly supports a unit-price premium for an otherwise comparable site?
A rectangular site's frontage is doubled while its depth is halved, keeping area constant. What is the likely value effect in a retail district?
A zoning change increases permitted density from four to eight units per acre. What is the likely effect on site value?
Using the allocation method, market evidence supports a typical land-to-total-property-value ratio of 28% for similar improved properties in the subject’s location. An improved comparable sold for $825,000. What land (site) contribution is indicated by applying that ratio?
An appraiser is valuing a vacant site near a landfill. A similar vacant site that is not affected by the landfill sold for $480,000. Paired land sales indicate that proximity to the landfill lowers site prices by $70,000. No other adjustments apply. What is the indicated value of the subject site?
An appraiser is extracting site value from a $600,000 cash sale. The seller's records show an original construction cost of $250,000 and a depreciated book value of $110,000. The appraiser estimates current replacement cost new at $400,000 and accrued depreciation from all causes at $100,000. What is the indicated site value?
Three parcels assembled under single ownership (standard appraisal guidance assemblage) support separate as-is values of $290,000, $340,000, and $250,000. After assemblage for a higher-utility use, the combined site is valued at $1,050,000. Assemblage costs (demolition, legal, holding, and related) total $55,000. What is the indicated net plottage (plottage increment after assemblage costs)?
A comparable commercial site with 65 front feet sold for a cash-equivalent price of $585,000. Per standard appraisal guidance, sale price per front foot is a vacant-land unit of comparison when frontage is a primary value determinant. The subject site has 72 front feet and is otherwise similar. What indicated land value does the front-foot unit support before other adjustments?
An appraiser's value indication for a whole property is $2,450,000, and the depreciated contribution of all nonland improvements, including site improvements, is $1,180,000. What land value does the extraction method indicate?
People Also Study
Real Estate Market
13.6% of exam
Property Description
11.8% of exam
Sales Comparison Approach
16.4% of exam
Cost Approach
13.6% of exam
Income Approach
8.2% of exam
Previous Question
A comparable site with 80 front feet sold for a cash-equivalent $720,000. Market analysis supports applying its price per front foot to an otherwise matched subject with 95 front feet. What value does that rate indicate before any remaining adjustments?
Next Question
Three improved sales show site values of $90,000, $110,000 and $96,000 against prices of $360,000, $400,000 and $400,000. Using the median site-to-total ratio, what site value does allocation indicate for a subject valued at $450,000?