An appraiser is valuing Lot A. Adjacent Lot B is separately owned and separately used, and nothing in the market indicates that an assemblage of the two lots is reasonably probable. Combined, the two lots would support a larger building and create plottage value. How should the highest and best use analysis of Lot A treat the possible combination?
Correct Answer
A) Base the use on Lot A as it is held, without adding plottage value from combining it with Lot B
Highest and best use must be probable, not speculative. Lot B is separately owned and used, and nothing indicates that combining the lots is reasonably probable, so Lot A is analyzed as it is held and is not credited with plottage value from a combination that may never occur. If market evidence showed an assemblage was reasonably probable, the analysis could consider it. Options B, C and D each credit Lot A with value from an assemblage the facts do not support.
Why This Is the Correct Answer
Option A is correct because Lot B is separately owned and used and nothing indicates that an assemblage is reasonably probable. Highest and best use must be probable, not speculative, so Lot A is analyzed as it is held and is not credited with plottage value from a combination that may never occur.
Why the Other Options Are Wrong
Option B: Include Lot A's share of the plottage value, because the combined site would be worth more
Option B adds Lot A's share of the plottage value because the combined site would be worth more. Plottage value arises only when the sites are combined, and nothing shows that combination is reasonably probable, so Lot A is not credited with it.
Option C: Analyze the combined site as the use, because building across both lots is physically possible
Option C analyzes the combined site because building across both lots is physically possible. Physical possibility is only one test; Lot A's owner does not control Lot B, and with nothing showing an assemblage is reasonably probable, the combined use is speculative.
Option D: Treat the combination as the use, because Lot B's owner might decide to sell in the future
Option D treats the combination as the use because Lot B's owner might sell someday. A mere possibility of a future sale by another owner is speculative; without evidence that an assemblage is reasonably probable, it cannot be the basis of Lot A's highest and best use.
Value what the owner holds
Plottage from a neighbor's lot counts only when the market shows an assemblage is reasonably probable; otherwise the subject's highest and best use rests on the land its owner actually has.
How to use: Use this check whenever a stem tempts you to add plottage from a parcel in someone else's hands.
Exam Tip
Before crediting plottage, check whether the facts show that an assemblage is reasonably probable. A separately owned neighbor's parcel with no evidence of a likely combination is left out of the analysis.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- -Crediting plottage from an assemblage that is not shown to be reasonably probable
- -Treating physical possibility as control over a neighbor's land
- -Relying on a speculative future sale by another owner
Concept Deep Dive
Analysis
The question tests consolidation as a highest and best use issue. A larger combined site may look more productive, but Lot A's owner does not control Lot B, and nothing in the market shows an assemblage is reasonably probable. Without that evidence the combination is speculative, so the analysis rests on Lot A as it is held.
Background Knowledge
Highest and best use must be probable, not speculative or conjectural. Plottage value arises when sites are combined under one ownership into a site with greater utility. When an assemblage with a separately owned parcel is not reasonably probable, the subject is analyzed on its own; when market evidence shows an assemblage is reasonably probable, the appraiser can consider it.
Real-World Application
An owner of a narrow commercial lot argues that the land should be appraised as part of a future block-wide redevelopment. The neighboring parcels belong to others and are operating separately, so the appraiser values the lot on its own.
More Market Questions
In market area analysis, what characteristic distinguishes a district from a neighborhood?
Under USPAP Standards Rule 1-3(a), which item must an appraiser identify and analyze when necessary for credible results in a market value assignment?
How does the Fannie Mae Selling Guide define a neighborhood?
Several homes in a neighborhood are vacant and boarded up. Which market force does Fannie Mae classify this as?
Infrastructure investment such as a new interchange typically affects nearby land by:
A city raises property tax rates and tightens building regulations. Which market force does Fannie Mae classify these as?
An appraiser believes, without market evidence, that a nearby group home lowers values. What does Fannie Mae require?
Which three categories are used to report the supply of properties in a Fannie Mae neighborhood section?
An appraiser is asked for a retrospective value opinion as of three years ago. When must the appraiser meet the Competency Rule?
Can mixed land uses in a residential neighborhood ever enhance home values, according to Fannie Mae?
People Also Study
Property Description
11.8% of exam
Land or Site Valuation
4.5% of exam
Sales Comparison Approach
16.4% of exam
Cost Approach
13.6% of exam
Income Approach
8.2% of exam
Previous Question
A vacant site can legally and physically hold either a medical office building or a small retail center. Both are financially feasible and, on a risk-adjusted basis, would produce the same land value. How should the highest and best use conclusion treat them?
Next Question
Under Fannie Mae's Selling Guide, an appraiser notices that competitive sale prices jumped during the last three months after a long flat period. What must the property value trend reported in the neighborhood section reflect?