Property Question-Resolved

[paulsharvey]

So, we continue looking for properties, which I've posted several times over the last 3 years about. Wife found one that appears to tick the boxes, and more. It's got a remodeled 3/3.5, 2400 sq ft home, and 10 acres of land, with a small pond. It clearly has 10 acres, per property appraiser, and ad, but something seemed off. I did a drive by, and really matched what I thought I saw on aerials; seems a Lot smaller than 10 acres, more like 3-5? Did some more detailed looking, and it has 4.1 acres where the home is, connected to another 5.5 acres in a low land praiere, by a 8-10 foot deeded piece of property that snakes around at odd angles, to get to the 5.5. So, what I'm wondering; how much would you even begin to value 5.5 acres that Does have a deeded connection, but difficult to access, that may be seasonal under water, and definitely unbuildable. Sure, it's better than not having that 5.5, but how much above $0, would you add to the 4.1 and home?

 

[5030]

First thing I'd do if I was at all interested in it as I'd have a certified survey done and the property lines marked. Far as the not contiguous parcel, that would be whatever unimproved land is going for per acre where you are looking and I have no idea as it's not local for me.

 

[paulsharvey]

First thing I'd do if I was at all interested in it as I'd have a certified survey done and the property lines marked. Far as the not contiguous parcel, that would be whatever unimproved land is going for per acre where you are looking and I have no idea as it's not local for me.

Technically, it is contiguous, as it's an 8-10 ft wide piece of the same parcel that connects it to the lower piece, all as a single parcel. That 8-10 ft (scaling, says 8 ft wide, but probably actually a 10 feet strip) is all part of the same parcel. That would be the only access to this lowland piece too, no other way in, without trespassing. This lake bottom/praiere is Not Sovereign Submerged Land or Tiff Property, so you technically own it 100%, but in times it's underwater, anyone can go across freely.

That 10 foot access, which isn't cleared, would be difficult to manuveure with even a SxS or small tractor, with the 90 degree turns.

 

[paulsharvey]

I'm wondering what the reasoning for these parcel shapes is. I could 100% understand a Pie of the parcel extending into old lake bed/praiere, but its just really weird to see a piece like that, with many other parcels also having 'trails' leading to their own polygon of lake bottom.

 

[ultrarunner]

My last offer was contingent on survey...

Learned a lot from survey and for me well spent even not buying because of issues discovered.

10' here would be a problem even for a driveway... not even addressing slopes and obstacles.

Does it make sense just the home and the lower part has no value?

 

[paulsharvey]

Maybe the better question, would be, what would you value 5.5 acres of difficult to access wetlands, that is dry enough most of the year to drive on, but can not be built on. If it was swamp instead of praiere, it would be much better as a hunting area, but this looks like a mix of praire and dried up lake bed.

 

[5030]

Around here, that is referred to as an 'easement' I think your issue would be if anyone else has access to it and if anyone else uses it. I'm in kind of the same boat myself as I own property that isn't connected to the main farm parcel and what I (we) did was we spelled it out plainly on the deed that the 'easement' is for our use only and cannot be used by anyone else without our express, written permission. Now, I do rent that parcel out for row cropping and I plainly state in writing (notarized) that the easement is for ingress and egress only and no parking of any equipment will be allowed on it. In our case, there is a culvert in the mix and I have to maintain that culvert at my expense. Our parcel is a lot bigger then yours is, ours is 53 acres and includes some woods as well.

 

[RjCorazza]

That really looks like a mess to me. 1/2 of your property is somewhat remote, likely unusable, and there appears to be four other properties accessing lots via paths adjacent to each other on the winding 8' section.
A lot of conflict potential with the wrong neighbors.

 

[plowhog]

This is pretty much a mess.

Your blue marking obscured whether part of the 8 foot access is also part of a developed street, but it appears that it is. If so that is a negative. Also, there appears to be another road or driveway that crosses the 8 foot strip. If so, another negative.

In locales I am familiar with, the parcels would be more intact, with an easement for access between. I am not familiar with a "snake road" that is owned and deeded land, so maybe that is normal in your area or maybe something odd.

Your diagram is showing in yards, so I am guessing you have some sort of a GPS system which, notoriously, usually supplies something of a "cartoon" picture of property. I would not rely upon that very far.

I would head to the County Recorder or Assessor office and pull the parcel info, deeds, and more for review.

Unbuildable land with difficult access-- if it were me I would add zero value. Maybe negative value if it serves no added purpose but if you need to insure it or could potentially be liable for risk of something that might occur on that particular land.

I would focus on the residence and residence parcel and pretty much ignore the rest-- not sure why you would even want the "extra" land-- doesn't sound like it offers benefit?

 

[paulsharvey]

My last offer was contingent on survey...

Learned a lot from survey and for me well spent even not buying because of issues discovered.

10' here would be a problem even for a driveway... not even addressing slopes and obstacles.

Does it make sense just the home and the lower part has no value?

Well, the price is pretty much in line, or better, than comparable. It's kinda the difference between, hey, that's an OK piece that works for us, but kinda small (4.1 acres), and hot damn, that awesome, (10 acres), and now, I'm not sure what I would even do with that piece. I imagine it could be used for some stuff, maybe gardening, food plots, live stock, shooting range, ect.

 

[dstig1]

Well, ask yourself the question "What could I do with it (the extra piece of land)?" It doesn't give you the buffer of being on 10 ac, since you are on 4 ac in the house and it is not contiguous. Can you hunt on it (if you want to )? Can it be split off and sold (doesn't sound like it)? Come up with any more of your own questions and in the end if you can't find one answer that gives it value, then I'd put the value at basically nothing. A very unusual setup to my eyes...

 

[5030]

My last offer was contingent on survey...

Learned a lot from survey and for me well spent even not buying because of issues discovered.

10' here would be a problem even for a driveway... not even addressing slopes and obstacles.

Does it make sense just the home and the lower part has no value?

All land, vacant or otherwise has value, especially if you own the mineral rights. problem is, that value (real or imagined) is entirely up to the seller and buyer to negotiate. The other issue (at least here in this state) is, whatever the value and selling price is finally agreed upon, the taxable value will be determined on that dollar figure. In our case, that parcel is in PA116 which means the bulk of the RE taxes are not applicable. However (and here is the stickler here), if we were to ever sell it or sub divide it, the RE taxes at that point would become due and payable at the current rate.

 

[paulsharvey]

I 'think' what the 'intent' is with the slivers, is instead of a 4 way easement trail to the semi orphaned pieces, is each upland part as it's own, included, connection to their orphan. It doesn't appear any of the 4 'trail slivers' are fenced, and in practice, I imagine the 4 property owners just use the 40 ft total trail; but that could get sticky fast.

Another area, kinda similar property types, it's set up different, where each upland parcel just butts upto Sovereign Submerged Lands (owned by state, you can hunt, drive on, SSL, but its not yours). Maybe the State didn't want this lake bottom?

 

[5030]

I imagine it could be used for some stuff, maybe gardening, food plots, live stock, shooting range, ect.

You haver to be careful with that as well because you have landowners adjacent to it that may or may not agree with your intended usage and I have no clue as to if it's zoned or not and if it is, zoning will always take precedent. My wife gets involved in just that here as she's the chairperson of the Township zoning commission and you won't believe the heated arguments that come about when a new owner wants to do something that flies in the face of the zoning ordinance and 99% of the time, the ordinance wins out. If it is zoned, you have another can of worms to deal with.

 

[plowhog]

I 'think' what the 'intent' is with the slivers, is instead of a 4 way easement trail to the semi orphaned pieces, is each upland part as it's own, included, connection to their orphan. It doesn't appear any of the 4 'trail slivers' are fenced, and in practice, I imagine the 4 property owners just use the 40 ft total trail; but that could get sticky fast.

Like when a storm washes it out, and it's time for each party to pony up equal $$ shares for repairs?

 

[paulsharvey]

Like when a storm washes it out, and it's time for each party to pony up equal $$ shares for repairs?

Yeah, Easements are rough. Been dealing with one at work. Guy A separates 5 or 10 acres of road frontage, keeps back 25-30. Sells, front piece to Guy B, but retains an acess easement across the front to his property. Guy B buys it, and has to build a legal residential access/drive. Then Guy A decides to build the 30-35 into an agro tourism venue. Guy B is now mad, because he's worried about 300+ people using the access.

 

[steve tym]

Sounds like it adds no value, but adds liability and taxes. Might be able to buy up surrounding parcels that would add value?

 

[paulsharvey]

You haver to be careful with that as well because you have landowners adjacent to it that may or may not agree with your intended usage and I have no clue as to if it's zoned or not and if it is, zoning will always take precedent. My wife gets involved in just that here as she's the chairperson of the Township zoning commission and you won't believe the heated arguments that come about when a new owner wants to do something that flies in the face of the zoning ordinance and 99% of the time, the ordinance wins out. If it is zoned, you have another can of worms to deal with.

It's all zoned Ag.

 

[paulsharvey]

Sounds like it adds no value, but adds liability and taxes. Might be able to buy up surrounding parcels that would add value?

I was thinking the same thing; 5.5 acres of bottom land might be almost worthless, but if you could pick up some of the other people's worthless pieces of dryish bottom, that's approx 80 acres of lake bottom, that is mostly sand/grass, with several 1-5 acre wet ponds remaining.

 

[Complete Turf Care]

My suggestion is would be...If you like the house, buy all of the 10 acres, and turn around and sell the back 5.5 to one of the adjacent landowners. But I would make that deal, before buying.

Or, maybe you could buy the land between the 4 and the 5.5 acres to give you better access. The 8' easment is not wide enough to build access.

And without access, the 5.5 acres is pretty worthless unless there is oil under it.