An appraiser signs a report but did not personally inspect the property. What is required?
Correct Answer
D) The extent of inspection performed must be disclosed
Why this is correct: USPAP requires disclosure of the extent of any inspection performed, allowing readers to understand the basis for the appraisal. Lack of personal inspection is permissible if disclosed. Why the other choices are wrong: "The report may not be signed under any circumstances" is false; signing is allowed with proper disclosure. "A second appraiser must co-sign the completed report" is incorrect; co-signing is not required. "The client must waive the inspection in writing first" is wrong; client waiver is not a USPAP requirement. Exam tip: Always disclose what was and was not inspected; silence misleads readers into assuming a full inspection.
Why This Is the Correct Answer
The extent of inspection performed must be disclosed is correct because disclosure is the mechanism USPAP uses throughout, and here it operates through both the scope of work summary and the certification. Practically, the appraiser states what was observed and how, whether that was an exterior-only viewing, reliance on photographs or a third-party property data collection, or no viewing at all, and identifies the information relied on in place of an inspection. The appraiser must also be satisfied that the reduced scope still produces credible results for the intended use, since disclosure does not rescue a scope of work that is inadequate for the assignment. If it does not, the answer is to expand the scope or decline, not to disclose and proceed.
Why the Other Options Are Wrong
Option A: The report may not be signed under any circumstances
A blanket prohibition on signing without inspection does not exist, and a great deal of legitimate appraisal practice proceeds without one, including desktop assignments, exterior-only assignments, and retrospective appraisals of properties that no longer exist in their appraised condition. Scope of work is determined by the intended use and the need for credible results, not by a mandatory inspection. The option converts a disclosure requirement into a prohibition.
Option B: A second appraiser must co-sign the completed report
Nothing in USPAP requires a co-signature when the signing appraiser did not inspect. Where another individual provided significant real property appraisal assistance, the certification requires that person to be named and their contribution stated, which is a disclosure obligation rather than a co-signing one. Candidates confuse the assistance disclosure with a supervisory co-signature requirement.
Option C: The client must waive the inspection in writing first
A client cannot waive a USPAP obligation, and USPAP does not condition a reduced inspection scope on client permission. A client may request a particular scope of work, and the appraiser may accept it only if the results will still be credible for the intended use, but the governing test is credibility and disclosure rather than a written waiver. Treating client consent as the operative requirement misplaces the authority.
Not Required, But Never Hidden
Inspection is a scope decision, not a commandment. USPAP rarely says you must do a thing; it says you must say what you did. Ask first whether the rule prohibits or discloses, and it will almost always be disclose.
How to use: When a stem describes something the appraiser did not do, look for the option requiring disclosure rather than the one prohibiting the assignment. Then check the second half of the test, whether the reduced scope still supports credible results. Reject options built on client waivers or mandatory co-signatures.
Exam Tip
USPAP disclosure questions almost never have a prohibition as the answer. Look for the choice that tells the reader what was and was not done.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- -Marking the certification as though a personal inspection occurred when the scope was exterior-only or desktop
- -Treating a client's instruction as authority to skip disclosure of the inspection extent
- -Accepting a limited scope that cannot produce credible results and relying on disclosure to cure it
Concept Deep Dive
Analysis
This item tests the relationship between inspection and disclosure. USPAP nowhere makes a personal inspection a precondition of an appraisal, because inspection is a scope of work decision rather than a rule, and the SCOPE OF WORK RULE lets the appraiser determine the scope necessary to produce credible assignment results for the intended use. What USPAP does require is that the reader be told what was actually done, so the scope of work summary required in the reporting standards has to describe the extent of inspection, including a report where no personal inspection occurred. The signed certification in Standards Rule 2-3 reinforces this with an explicit statement that the appraiser has or has not made a personal inspection of the subject property. The tested distinction is therefore between prohibition and disclosure: the absence of an inspection does not invalidate the assignment, and concealing that absence does.
Background Knowledge
You need to know that the SCOPE OF WORK RULE places responsibility for determining scope on the appraiser, measured against what is necessary for credible assignment results and consistent with the expectations of parties who are regularly intended users for similar assignments. You should know that the reporting standards require a summary of the scope of work and that the Standards Rule 2-3 certification contains an explicit statement regarding personal inspection of the subject. You also need to know that significant real property appraisal assistance from another individual must be disclosed in the certification with that person named.
Real-World Application
A lender orders a desktop appraisal supported by a third-party property data collection with interior photographs and a floor plan. The appraiser never enters the house, states in the scope of work summary that no personal inspection was made and describes the data collection relied upon, and marks the certification accordingly. She also documents her judgment that the available data supports credible results for the intended use, and she declines a similar assignment on a complex property where it would not.
More USPAP Questions
Reconciliation of the approaches to value is best described as which activity?
Why should the reconciliation address the quantity of evidence as well as its quality?
How long must a report be retained compared with the workfile?
What distinguishes an appraisal review from an appraisal?
An appraiser reconciles to a value at the top of the indicated range because the client needs that figure. What has occurred?
What does it mean that a value opinion must be reasonable rather than merely arithmetically derived?
What should the reconciliation section explain to the reader?
How do the content obligations of the two report options differ with respect to the information analyzed?
The three approaches indicate $480,000, $495,000 and $610,000. What should the appraiser do first?
Three approaches indicate $1.02 million, $1.05 million and $1.04 million. How should this be reported?