Is that thing a “fixer upper” or a “tear down”?

Today a friend asked me how real estate appraisers value properties that are in “below average” condition.  He wanted to know if we valued them in their “as is” condition, and whether or not repair costs were factored in.

In essence, how do you know if a property is a “fixer upper” or a “tear down”?

In a nutshell:

1. If a property is in poor condition, an appraiser considers whether or not the value of the real estate, in its “as is” condition, exceeds the value of the underlying land.
2. An appraiser determines this by analyzing the cost to repair the building to typical/average condition, and comparing the net value against the value of the underlying land, less demolition costs.

In detail:

It’s a relatively simple process, the appraisal buzzwords associated with this valuation method are “highest and best use” and “cost to cure”.

To demonstrate the analysis, I went on the Honolulu MLS and found a commercial property built in 1959, the same year Hawaii became a State.

Here, in all of its glory, is the poor condition (according to MLS)  office / retail property known as “1339 North School Street”:

1339 North School Street, Honolulu, Hawaii

A bunch of appraiser math/mumbo-jumbo below, skip to the chart at the end to see the answer.

For our purposes, the asking price is irrelevant, especially because the listing includes additional land parcels.  The figures used below are part of a simplistic appraisal demonstration only.

Let’s assume an appraiser determines that vacant land in the subject neighborhood is worth $100 per square foot.  Similarly, let’s assume average/typical commercial buildings are selling for $300 per square foot of building area.  The values would compare as shown below.

Since the value of an average condition building “as improved” is worth more than the property “assuming demolition”, we proceed to the next step: determining the value of the building in poor condition (its “as is” condition).

Let’s assume a reputable contractor estimated the construction/repair cost necessary to renovate the subject building to “average” condition to be $500,000.  This amount is deducted from the “if in average condition” building value to arrive at the value of the overall property in poor condition of $1.75 million.

So, where are we at?

How does land value (assuming demolition) compare to property value (assuming renovation)?

Yep, it’s a tear down.

In this hypothetical scenario, the value of the underlying land, even after deducting demolition costs, exceeds the value of the poor condition property “as is”.  Therefore, the highest and best use of the property is demolition of the built-in-1959 (54 year old) improvements to make way for new development.

Questions, comments?  Please leave them in the comment box, I would be happy to clarify and/or expand.

Aloha, Chris