Question for homeowners

"how much weight did you, as a surveyor, put on the actual square footage of your home when deciding to purchase it?"

+/- 25% of the target size was plenty close enough, several times.

location, location, condition, location, quality, location... and quality of title!

So are you saying that if the structure you purchased was represented as being 2,000sf and it wound up being 1,500sf you'd think "oh well..."?

sorry Dave, I mis-spoke.

I should have said: When shopping for a home of a desired size, I have been always happy with choosing a home within +/- 25% of my original target.
---

If a home is represented as XXX sq. ft. I would expect less than 5%, or maybe even 10% variance... much more than that and I would be talking about gross errors with the seller.

I expect that you have already made a reasonable judgment that the ballpark size is pretty close to the represented size. Take a breath and be confident in that, but verify it as much as you feel you should. You can hold fast until you are satisfied.

I am not in the biz, but I often see a 20% building size difference in comps without major value difference...

The actual room sizes and possible furniture layouts would be the major factors to me. I often see oddball rooms and layouts (and door and window sizes) that greatly diminish the usability and value of a home. How well it fits you and your family in the long run is the most important thing.

In a booming market and in huge developments the home values have been reduced to a hard square foot cost/value, not today, and probably not in your case.

PS: I did not read your link... nothing says you need to go that route... hopefully never.

I would put very little stock in what the assessor said. The only house we've bought (built our first one) I never even bothered to check what the measurements were. The house is what we wanted, suited our needs, the price was right, and it had good future possibilities.

In Lawton the square footage on the tax records are from the initial building permits of the home so it's usually pretty close. And the majority of our neighborhoods are filled with comparable homes. We have subdivions with +3500 sqft homes and then those like mine in 2,000 sqft range. Rarely are these mixed and mostly because of the lot sizes and appraisal rates.

I've owned a lot of homes and rarely did I shop on square footage. Mostly on schools, neighborhoods, accessibility and the home layout itself. A really large home with a poor layout will be something you will grow to hate.

One thing that is important to me is the infrastructure. I made sure the waterline was not on my side of the street. (when they do a repair it tears up your yard and sometimes your driveway). I checked the sewer back up records to make sure there were no high maintenance lines in the area and of course I purchased on high ground to avoid any chance of flooding or of being required to get flood insurance.

Just an idea but can you use google earth and get a rough approximation of the size from the aerial?

So I guess my question would be "how much weight did you, as a surveyor, put on the actual square footage of your home when deciding to purchase it?", realizing location, condition, etc. etc. have a lot to do with the purchase price of the home.

Dave: Maybe I have misunderstood your question, but the quantitative square footage of the house has never been a factor in my choosing the houses I have bought. Just like the "rules of construction for conflicting deed elements" square footage has the lowest priority.

Buying a house is like buying a piece of art. Either it does it for you or it doesn't. Neighborhood, schools, neighbors, functionality, and intuition that this is the house for you are the important things.

(Edit: by the way, around here the assessors actually go out and measure the houses.)

Precise square footage would be near the bottom of my "important" list.
And, I've owned nine homes so far.

Evey realtor / bank / mortgage co and appraiser use square footage as a means of determining value.

From a lending perspective and a valuation standpoint square footage is very important.

However, if there is a contract to buy/sell at a reasonable variation of 'average' square footage ranges, the appraiser will consider contract price as a more realistic way of determining if the 'value' exists. Providing that its' an 'arm length' transaction.

So, is square footage a big deal?
Maybe / maybe not.

Providing that there is not a major difference in what the county tax records indicate. - A couple Sq Ft here or there - no big deal. But if there records are 150 sq ft off, that would be a different story.

In my area, the average square footage price for a residential home is near the $135/Sq Ft - So in my neighborhood, a 2,500 Sq Ft house compared to a 2,650 Sq Ft house, you would expect a price difference in value of about $20,000

Evey realtor / bank / mortgage co and appraiser use square footage as a means of determining value.

I hear you, but in my area appraisals are based primarily on "Comparables". If a house in my locus sells for a certain price, even if the sq. footage is different by some degree, it is considered a basis for establishing the market the value of my house.

Merlin
That's how it works in my area also. Square footage is important in the process but it has a lot more to do with comparable sales in the neighborhood.

I plan on this being my last house so I do not mind spending for the best of appliances and such but they really do not add any value over a neighbor who uses the lowest grade stuff on his house.