A residential appraisal includes three comparables. One comparable has a 15% larger lot than the subject. The appraiser applies a dollar adjustment of −$12,500 to that comparable’s sale price. A second comparable has a 10% smaller lot and receives a +$7,800 adjustment. The third comparable has a 5% larger lot and receives −$4,100. Which adjustment sequence most likely complies with USPAP Standards Rule 1-4 and common industry practice?
Correct Answer
D) The appraiser used the same per-square-foot lot premium ($2.75/sf) across all three comparables but applied it only to the incremental difference in lot size.
USPAP Standards Rule 1-4 requires adjustments to be based on market data and applied consistently for like differences. Using a uniform, market-supported per-unit rate (e.g., $2.75/sf) applied *only to the incremental difference* (not the entire lot) is the most defensible method — it reflects how the market values marginal differences and avoids over-adjustment. Option A is plausible but incomplete: deriving from paired sales is necessary but doesn’t guarantee proper *application* (e.g., applying to total lot vs. increment). Option B is incorrect: percentage-based lot adjustments are not market-supported and violate SR 1-4’s requirement for market-derived, quantitative support. Option C violates SR 1-4(a) by rounding before analysis completion and sequencing adjustments improperly — lot size adjustments should precede condition/GLA if lot is a primary driver, and rounding must not obscure market-supported precision.
Why This Is the Correct Answer
Option D is correct because a uniform, market-supported per-unit rate applied only to the incremental difference is the most defensible construction. Uniformity means a reviewer can verify that a 15 percent larger lot and a 5 percent larger lot were treated by the same rule, with the difference in adjustment reflecting only the difference in size. Restricting the rate to the increment avoids the overstatement that comes from applying a rate to the full lot area. The three adjustments in the stem are broadly consistent with a single rate applied this way, which is what makes the answer the most likely explanation.
Why the Other Options Are Wrong
Option A: All adjustments were derived from lot-size paired sales and applied as dollar amounts before other adjustments.
Deriving adjustments from paired sales is genuinely good practice, but this option stops short of describing what makes the set coherent, and it emphasizes ordering, which is not what determines defensibility for a physical characteristic. It also leaves open whether the same rate was applied to each comparable, which is the consistency question a reviewer would ask first. As a description it is plausible but incomplete next to the option that specifies a uniform incremental rate.
Option B: All adjustments were applied as percentages of sale price, then converted to dollars after totaling all adjustments.
Applying percentages of sale price and converting to dollars only after totaling misstates how grid adjustments work and would make each comparable's lot adjustment depend on its own price rather than on the size difference. Two comparables with identical lot differences would then receive different dollar adjustments purely because they sold for different amounts. Percentage adjustments have a legitimate role, particularly for market conditions, but tying a physical difference to sale price in this way is not supportable.
Option C: The adjustments were applied after condition and GLA adjustments, and each was rounded to the nearest $100 to simplify reconciliation.
Sequence matters for the transactional adjustments, which are applied in order before the physical ones, but among physical characteristics such as condition, living area, and lot size the ordering does not change the result. Rounding to the nearest hundred dollars is harmless housekeeping and says nothing about whether the amounts were market derived. The option describes cosmetic features of the grid rather than the basis of the adjustments.
One rate, applied to the difference
Defensible adjustments share one yardstick and measure only the gap. Same rate for every comparable, multiplied by the increment, never by the whole lot.
How to use: When a stem shows several adjustments for the same characteristic, divide each by its size difference and see whether one rate explains them all. Consistency is what the question is really testing.
Exam Tip
Look for internal consistency before elegance. A reviewer's first question about any grid is whether comparable differences of the same kind were adjusted by the same rule.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- -Applying a per-unit rate to the entire lot instead of the difference
- -Using different rates for the same characteristic across comparables
- -Tying a physical adjustment to a percentage of each comparable's sale price
- -Applying market conditions adjustments out of sequence with the other transactional elements
Concept Deep Dive
Analysis
This tests what makes a set of adjustments defensible, which comes down to consistency and market support rather than the order in which entries are typed into a grid. USPAP requires the appraiser to analyze the comparable sales data available and to support the adjustments applied, and reviewers test that support by asking whether like differences were treated alike. A single market-derived rate per square foot of lot area, applied only to the incremental difference between each comparable and the subject, satisfies both tests: every comparable is measured against the same yardstick, and the adjustment captures only the marginal difference rather than repricing the entire lot. The incremental point matters because land value is not linear with area; the first square feet of a residential lot carry the building site and most of the utility, while additional area contributes at a much lower rate. Applying the marginal rate to the marginal difference is what keeps the adjustment from overstating the effect.
Background Knowledge
You need the standard sequence of elements of comparison, in which property rights conveyed, financing terms, conditions of sale, expenditures immediately after purchase, and market conditions are applied first and in order, followed by location and physical characteristics. You also need to know that adjustments must be derived from market evidence, applied consistently across comparables, and explained in the report, and that land value is not linear with lot area.
Real-World Application
In a subdivision with varying lot sizes you extract $2.75 per square foot of excess land from three paired sales, apply it to the square footage difference between each comparable and the subject, and show the derivation in an addendum. When a reviewer questions the largest adjustment, the uniform rate and the paired sales answer the question without further work.
More Sales Comparison Questions
Excess land differs from surplus land in that excess land:
A paired sales analysis reveals that homes with stainless-steel appliances sell for $2,100 more than identical homes with standard appliances — but only when the homes are priced below $350,000. In the subject’s neighborhood, median sale price is $410,000. What is the appraiser’s obligation regarding the $2,100 appliance adjustment?
GLA differs by 210 sq ft between subject and comparable. Paired sales support $65 per sq ft of living area. The line adjustment is:
Paired sales are drawn from transactions six months apart in a stable market. The time adjustment needed is:
The most appropriate unit of comparison is determined by:
A comparable superior to the subject in every adjusted category should produce an indication that is:
Three sales support $520,000; the borrower's purchase contract is $505,000. May the appraisal conclude above the contract price?
A comparable sold for $300,000 with the seller carrying a loan 2 points below market, a benefit worth $8,000. What is its cash-equivalent price?
Why is a foreclosure sale generally a poor comparable in a stable market?
A comparable sold 8 months ago for $250,000 in a market appreciating 6% per year. What is the time-adjusted price?
People Also Study
Real Estate Market
13.6% of exam
Property Description
11.8% of exam
Land or Site Valuation
4.5% of exam
Cost Approach
13.6% of exam
Income Approach
8.2% of exam