Ajw

“Ceiling Heights. Unless legally constructed as such, no habitable room shall have a ceiling height less than seven feet six inches. Any room, other than a habitable room, shall have a ceiling height of not less than seven feet.”

Obviously, the garage should be excluded from the area regardless. Here is the definition of habitable room:

“Habitable Space (Room). Any room or space in a structure for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet compartments, closets, halls, storage or utility space areas are not considered habitable space.”

so conceivably, closets or a bathroom with a 7′-0″ ceiling, accessed directly from the main house (or via a finished staircase or corridor). . . . . would be included in the tax assessors area.

That said, 7′-0″ ceilings are miserable!!

That said … a house we are in process of selling had been updated/added to with permits; however, the tax records still reflected the original sq. feet. Id like to know how one goes about changing that? For the original owner who made the improvements, it may be in their best interest to keep it as is as to not have it reassessed .. but once it changes hands – or is about to – the assessment is just based on purchase price anyway so it would be better to have it accurate, correct? As the seller of a house that was legal w/bad sq. footage info, I can see why agents would leave it out.

Has anyone had their sq. footage updated w/the assessors office for this reason?

The variety of original sources, accuracy of devices used, ability of the person measuring, the degree of rounding error and definition of “living area” makes even comparisions virtually impossible… but the apparent simplicity appeals to the “analyst” in all buyers, who are seduced by the magical thinking that a single indisputable number times a multiplier equals value…

Other posters have dealt with the inside versus outside definitions, which are accurate… single family residences are defined by the exterior building envelope; condo and co-ops by interior walls since that is the area which is actually owned… garages, unfinished areas and finished areas which are accessed through unfinshed areas, decks and other unheated spaces which are significantly different in contributory value should be valued separately… architects are obviously the most skilled for this task, but skilled appraisers and other professionals can complete accurate living area dimensions… the laser devices you get from the hardware store are not accurate enough, but contrary to the architect poster who swears by his tape measure, Leica has been making a professional laser device which is accurate within 1/16 of an inch and is just as accurate as a tape measure…

But even with an architect produced layout, the rounding error in each measurement mulitplied by the number of walls and the number of floors can produce a 2-10% difference in even the most accurate building diagrams… so which one is “accurate”? Mmm I know; the one that backs up your belief or agenda…

But lets say you settle on the accuracy of your measurment… at last; youre all set right? Hardly… the indicators you extract from the market which you are hoping to rely on are derived from a myriad of sources, most of which are moderately to substantially inaccurate… and of course price per living square foot does not take into account the site contribution, which can be substantial in the case of many properties on large lots…

Follow that up with the misperception that 100 sqft difference in size times the living price per sqft equals the difference in value… there can be a great difference between the contributory value of additional or lesser square footage and the raw price of a property per living square footage, for the very reasons noted above (significant site contribution etc)… if anyone has read their appraisals, you wont find the adjustments between the comparable properties and the subject being made at 1000.00 per sqft (or whatever arbitrary indicator you might choose)… they are made on a much reduced basis to reflect the actual difference in contributory value… those adjustments are commonly made at 50-250.00 per sqft depending on price range and market segment… when folks realize this difference, the big picture becomes clearer regarding the difference in price/value of a rounding error in a building diagram… its not actually 100 sqft times 1000.00, its often 100 sqft times 100.00… a world of difference… with many properties, there will be far more important value contributing aspects (location, views, site area/utility, condition, upgrading, floorplan, design/appeal etc) which will dwarf the relatively minor differences in size… these aspects are of course far more difficult to quantify and so are often left alone…

Price per living square foot can be a useful indicator… in properties in which the entirety of the sales price resides in the square footage of the improvements and the square footage of all of the comparables have been accurately measured by one person and is of equal utility… in any other case there is no way around the old fashioned way of valuing a piece of real estate by looking at all of its aspects, not just the ones that are most easily quantified

AJW

[Editor's note: If I had a payroll to put you on, you'd be on it...for sure. That was great. Thanks.]

http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/19/real_estate/bc.apfn.paulson.mortgages.ap/index.htm?section=money_realestate