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.
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.
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
Valuation Principles & Procedures
25% of exam
Property Description & Analysis
20% of exam
Market Analysis & Highest/Best Use
15% of exam
Appraisal Math & Statistics
15% of exam
USPAP (Ethics & Standards)
15% of exam
Previous Question
An appraiser is analyzing paired sales for view premium in a coastal subdivision. She identifies two ocean-view properties (A and B) and two non-view properties (C and D), all built by the same developer, same floor plan (2,400 sq ft), same year, and same lot size (0.18 acre). Sales prices and dates: A (view, 6/12) = $824,000; B (view, 6/18) = $819,000; C (non-view, 6/10) = $712,000; D (non-view, 6/20) = $708,000. Assuming no time adjustment is needed due to market stability, what is the median view premium indicated by the four possible paired combinations (A–C, A–D, B–C, B–D)?
Next Question
Two otherwise identical sales differ only in that one has a fireplace and sold for $6,500 more. What has the appraiser found?
