EstatePass
sales-comparison-approachmedium

An appraiser uses a grid to apply adjustments for GLA, condition, and bath count. For GLA, the appraiser applies a $65/sf adjustment. For condition, a −$18,000 dollar adjustment is applied. For baths, a +$9,500 adjustment is used. After all adjustments, the adjusted sale prices range from $412,300 to $428,700. The appraiser then calculates a gross adjustment limit of ±6.5% of the unadjusted sale prices and finds one comparable exceeds it. What is the USPAP-compliant next step?

Correct Answer

B) Re-evaluate the magnitude and support for each individual adjustment to determine whether the aggregate reflects market behavior.

USPAP does not prescribe gross or net adjustment limits. Standards Rule 1-4 requires only that adjustments be market-supported and applied appropriately. A gross adjustment 'limit' is a self-imposed reasonableness check — not a USPAP mandate. When an aggregate appears extreme, the appraiser’s obligation (per SR 1-4 and Comment 1-4a) is to re-examine the *support* and *logic* of each component adjustment, not mechanically cap or discard. Option B fulfills this duty. Option A misstates USPAP: no rule requires discarding comparables solely for large adjustments. Option C and D impose arbitrary mathematical constraints unsupported by USPAP or market data — violating SR 1-4’s emphasis on market-derived reasoning.

Answer Options
A
Discard the comparable outright, as exceeding the gross limit invalidates its use.
B
Re-evaluate the magnitude and support for each individual adjustment to determine whether the aggregate reflects market behavior.
C
Reduce all adjustments proportionally until the gross limit is satisfied.
D
Apply a net adjustment cap of $25,000 and truncate any excess.

Why This Is the Correct Answer

USPAP does not prescribe gross or net adjustment limits. Standards Rule 1-4 requires only that adjustments be market-supported and applied appropriately. A gross adjustment 'limit' is a self-imposed reasonableness check — not a USPAP mandate. When an aggregate appears extreme, the appraiser’s obligation (per SR 1-4 and Comment 1-4a) is to re-examine the *support* and *logic* of each component adjustment, not mechanically cap or discard. Option B fulfills this duty. Option A misstates USPAP: no rule requires discarding comparables solely for large adjustments. Option C and D impose arbitrary mathematical constraints unsupported by USPAP or market data — violating SR 1-4’s emphasis on market-derived reasoning.

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