EstatePass
sales-comparison-approachmedium

An appraiser is reconciling three comparable sales for a subject property with 2,100 square feet. One comparable has 1,950 square feet and sold for $468,000; another has 2,250 square feet and sold for $495,000. The appraiser calculates a gross adjustment of +$18,000 for the first comparable and −$22,500 for the second. Which statement best reflects proper application of net versus gross adjustment logic in the sales comparison approach?

Correct Answer

C) Gross adjustments violate USPAP Standards Rule 1-4(b) because they fail to isolate the contribution of individual characteristics and obscure the direction and magnitude of each influence.

USPAP Standards Rule 1-4(b) requires that adjustments be supported by market evidence and reflect the contribution of individual characteristics. Gross adjustments—applied without isolating the effect of each feature—obscure causality, impede verification, and hinder reconciliation. They do not satisfy the requirement to support adjustments with data or analysis (e.g., paired-sales or regression). Net adjustments, derived from quantifiable market reactions to specific differences, are required for defensible analysis. Option C correctly identifies the violation; A, B, and D misrepresent USPAP requirements and appraisal best practices.

Answer Options
A
The gross adjustments are appropriate because they reflect total market reaction to size differences without requiring isolation of other influences.
B
Gross adjustments are acceptable only when no other differing features exist between the subject and comparable.
C
Gross adjustments violate USPAP Standards Rule 1-4(b) because they fail to isolate the contribution of individual characteristics and obscure the direction and magnitude of each influence.
D
Gross adjustments are preferred over net adjustments when paired-sales analysis is unavailable.

Why This Is the Correct Answer

USPAP Standards Rule 1-4(b) requires that adjustments be supported by market evidence and reflect the contribution of individual characteristics. Gross adjustments—applied without isolating the effect of each feature—obscure causality, impede verification, and hinder reconciliation. They do not satisfy the requirement to support adjustments with data or analysis (e.g., paired-sales or regression). Net adjustments, derived from quantifiable market reactions to specific differences, are required for defensible analysis. Option C correctly identifies the violation; A, B, and D misrepresent USPAP requirements and appraisal best practices.

Was this explanation helpful?

More sales-comparison-approach Questions

Excess land differs from surplus land in that excess land:

A subject property has a 3-car attached garage. The appraiser locates two valid paired sales: Sale 1 (with 3-car garage) sold for $512,000; Sale 2 (with 2-car garage) sold for $497,600. Both properties are otherwise identical — same age, quality, GLA, lot size, and neighborhood — and sold 5 days apart in a balanced market. The appraiser also confirms via public records and listing photos that no other functional or physical differences exist. What is the indicated contributory value of the *third* garage stall?

The most appropriate unit of comparison is determined by:

An appraiser analyzes three paired sales to isolate the effect of a fireplace. In Pair 1, the property with a fireplace sold for $12,000 more; in Pair 2, $10,500 more; and in Pair 3, $13,500 more. All pairs are highly similar and recent. The appraiser selects $12,000 as the final adjustment. Which principle best supports this selection?

A paired sales analysis yields an adjustment of −$15,000 for a property located on a busy arterial street. Later, the appraiser discovers that all three paired properties with arterial exposure also had 20% smaller lots than their non-arterial counterparts — a difference not initially controlled for. What is the most appropriate action per USPAP?

An appraiser identifies two comparable sales that are identical in all respects except that Sale #1 has a finished basement (1,200 sq ft) and sold for $432,000, while Sale #2 has an unfinished basement of the same size and sold for $408,000. Both sales occurred within three weeks of each other in a stable market. The appraiser intends to apply a per-square-foot adjustment for basement finish to the subject property, which has a 1,000 sq ft finished basement. What is the appropriate paired-sales-derived adjustment amount per square foot for a finished basement?

Three sales support $520,000; the borrower's purchase contract is $505,000. May the appraisal conclude above the contract price?

An appraiser develops a $3,200 adjustment for a fireplace based on a single paired sale. The subject has a fireplace; Comparable A does not. The appraiser applies +$3,200 to Comparable A. Later, the appraiser identifies a second pair showing a $4,600 fireplace contribution. The appraiser replaces the original adjustment with $3,900 — the simple average — and applies it to Comparable A. What is the appropriate USPAP-compliant action regarding the adjustment amount?

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?

Three comparables adjust to $412,000 (gross adj. 5%), $405,000 (gross adj. 22%), and $410,000 (gross adj. 8%). What is the best-supported value conclusion?

People Also Study

Practice More Appraiser Questions

Access all practice questions with progress tracking and adaptive difficulty to pass your Appraiser exam.

Start Practicing