An assignment requires valuing a property as though a proposed rezoning had been granted. What is required for this to be acceptable?

Option A: The rezoning must be certain to be approved

Certainty would dissolve the hypothetical condition entirely, because a rezoning that has been granted is a fact to be analyzed rather than a condition to be assumed. Requiring certainty would also make the device useless, since its whole function is to explore a state of affairs that does not exist. An appraiser cannot vouch for how a legislative body will act, and nothing asks her to.

Option B: The client must indemnify the appraiser in writing

Indemnification is a private contract allocating financial risk between the appraiser and the client, and it has no effect on whether the analysis is credible or the report compliant. A hold-harmless agreement also does nothing for the intended users who might rely on a report that is misleading. Standards compliance cannot be purchased through the engagement letter.

Option D: A second opinion under existing zoning is mandatory

A second value under existing zoning is frequently useful and often requested, particularly in condemnation and lending contexts, but no rule makes it mandatory. The assignment is defined by the client's intended use, and if only the assumed-zoning value is needed, only that opinion must be developed. Turning a common practice into a requirement is the overreach in this option.