Unpermitted square footage and your lender

If you've been searching for real estate in Los Angeles and San Fernando Valley, you already know that many homes have been added on to since they were originally built.  Some of the additions are really nice and make a lot of sense; others are really funky.  Some are permitted; some are not (back in the day, a lot of do-it-yourselfers didn't bother to pull permits.  It would have increased their property taxes to do so.)  And this usually becomes a freak-out issue for most buyers.  Here are some things to know.

Here's what your lender is concerned about vis-a-vis unpermitted square footage.  Caveat: this has nothing to do with what the city or your insurance company thinks about unpermitted square footage.  That's another thing entirely. Your lender, through the property appraisal, will be concerned with:

• The addition must be done in a workman-like manner with decent construction standards. Nothing with cinderblock bricks instead of a foundation, for example.
• It can't have a kitchen.  This is a big no-no for most municipalities, too.
• The addition's square footage will not be counted towards the square footage of the house.  You can't say your house is 400 sf bigger because somebody drywalled the garage.
• There must be comparable or similar additions, permitted or not, in the neighborhood.  For example, if the homes on your street were built with carports instead of garages, but subsequently everyone enclosed their carport, it's probably okay with your lender.

How do you tell if the square footage is permitted? Two ways.  You can either visit the city building and safety department and pull the permits on the house.  Or contact Permitreport.com.  Or you can look at the County Assessor's tax records (easy to find online).  Sometimes, though, for whatever reason, all square footage hasn't been recorded by the tax assessor; if there's a dispute, definitely go to the municipality.  In another post, I'll go into what unpermitted additions are probably NOT okay.

How important are home photos to the selling process, anyway? OMG, they're everything!

Agent Genius had an article about home staging a couple of days ago. One of the comments was so true: the four things most responsible for a successful home sale are (in order): the home, the price, the photos and the staging. We’ll talk about staging another time, but to me, good interior pictures are key. 

There’s nothing like well-lit, professional quality pics to motivate a buyer to drive across town to see a home for sale.  Everybody has been watching HGtv for years now, and everybody has access to all sorts of real estate porn gorgeous home photos. Buyers have high expectations and many properties to choose from. Good property photos increase interest, which equals more showings sooner which equals quicker sales.   Even if the property isn’t glamorous, professional photographers can light otherwise dark corners, great angles can be used, and a house for sale can really look its best, online at least, for potential buyers.

So I’m puzzled as to why more Realtors aren’t having pro photos taken? (Unless the house is a truly scary tear-down.) Yes, there’s the cost, but we’re supposed to be spending money on our marketing, yes? (Or did I not get the memo?)  Buyers, would you go running to see the house above? Sellers, I can’t think of a single reason that your Realtor can’t hire a professional photographer – the cost is minimal for the return you’ll get.  And sellers, when the photographer is coming to shoot the house, it’s a good idea to tidy up – or at least put the butter away unless it's included in the sale.

New Year's resolutions

Happy new year, everybody! What are your resolutions regarding real estate? Here are mine:

• Have more fun with real estate,
• Help my clients have more fun and success with their r.e. deals,
• Visit more food trucks when they come to Studio City, Burbank and the San Fernando Valley.