Un-permitted expansion in the 70s problematic for home seller today
Here's a great post by Alameda County Agent Pacita Dimacali...
Here in Santa Cruz County, the Planning Department has been talking about an amnesty program for a while. It would be very helpful here, because there was no governing body issuing permits in the rural areas for homes built or added on to before the mid 1950's.
While I like to accompany my buyers to the County to ask "what if" questions at all the various departments, unfortunately an over the counter answer can't always address what an in-person visit can. Beyond the cost of arranging for the County to visit a property, there is the matter of the purchase agreeement, which states that buyers can't arrange for inspections by government building or zoning inspectors without the sellers' permission - unless required by law - and here, it isn't.
The problem grows more complex with foreclosed properties - where the seller often knows nothing. In many cases, the seller won't sign the authorization to search confidential records. I'm working on a Freddie Mac foreclosure like this. In this case, the only records about the size and layout of the home (estimated to have been built in the 1940s) are in the confidental records at the tax assessors' office. Fortunately, I'm working with a great listing agent and a planning consultant who were able to access the records.
So, although it's an expensive and time consuming process to get permits, the seller who can pull out finalized permits to give to a buyer is generally financially rewarded and can relax.
What did you know about the work done to expand the house?
When the homeowners bought their home at the peak of the market, they were thrilled.
The last few years, they made some structural and cosmetic improvements, and took pride in their beautiful home.
When they received word they need to relocate, they interviewed agents to list their property.
No permits!
The agent they chose pointed out the discrepancy between what is on the public records, the prior MLS post, and the owner's own appraisal.
The agent discovered that there were no permits issued to refinish the basement and to add a bathroom. According to the sellers, the prior owners expanded in the 70s --- 40 years ago, when the City may have been more lax about permits.
Furthermore, the agent discovered that there was no permit for the sewer lateral replacement which the previous owners claimed was done, but no proof was given.
Double whammy!
Although the property is in a highly desirable area of Montclair in the hills of Oakland CA, many buyers and their agents are also more careful about buying property with unpermitted work, perhaps due to certain actions taken by Oakland towards code enforcement.
Furthermore, even the relocation company which may have been somewhat "blind" to unpermitted work when approving a transferee's purchase, is now expressing concern when it comes time to assuming the mantle of being in the seller's position.
What are the sellers' options?
The sellers should check with the City about what they can do in such situations. Maybe the seller should get an inspector to look at the expansion work and hope that it was at least done according to code. The sellers may ask for an exemption, maybe amnesty for the unpermitted work. At best, they may have to pay for the cost of new permits and/or fines. At worst, the city may ask the work to be removed and re-done.
This questions has been asked many times. There are a couple of posts from BankRate.com
Why get a permit?
If one has plans to remodel, expand, one must determine in which cases a permit is required, then get it!
Realtor Magazine has this article "Remodeling? Don't Forget the Permit" Essentially, if the owner plans to re-sell in the future, doing work without a permit could jeopardize the sale.
RELATED POSTS
NO PERMITS? NO DEAL! BELIEVE IT!
When in doubt, get a permit...or pay the consequences later.
Comments (0)Subscribe to CommentsComment