New York appraisal Q&A: low valuations, timing and report access

Is a reconsideration meant only for factual mistakes, or can someone argue that the appraiser gave too much weight to an inferior comparable?
 
Both may be raised, but a measurable error is easier to present than a general disagreement. Identify the precise feature, data point or omitted sale and explain why it could affect the analysis.
 
Also separate the appraisal from the lender’s decision. Even if the valuation changes, financing can still depend on the lender’s own requirements. The appraiser does not approve the loan.
 
Would ordering a second appraisal solve the dispute, or could that just add cost while the first report remains the one the lender uses?
 
The lender should answer that before anyone orders anything. A second report may not replace the first automatically, and unauthorized duplication could consume money and time without changing the financing decision.
 
Can a buyer communicate directly with the appraiser after the report, or should all corrections go through the lender? Direct contact could easily be misunderstood.
 
To clarify my question, I mean neutral factual corrections such as the wrong floor or missed renovation—not asking the appraiser to reach a target number.
 
That distinction helps. Route factual corrections through the process specified by the lender or engagement party, preferably in writing. It preserves a clear record and avoids accidental pressure.
 
Details requested earlier: it is a financed New York condo, not a co-op. No low report yet; I am trying to prepare before valuation because the asking rationale relies heavily on the renovation.
 
Then ask the lender now how report access and reconsideration work. Preparing documents in advance is sensible, but do not assume they want a large submission before the appraiser has inspected and selected sales.
 
For fees, Haruto should also ask which valuation charge is already included, what could trigger another charge, and who must authorize it. Get the answers in writing rather than relying on casual estimates.
 
How different would this be for a New York co-op? I assume comparing units in the same building might matter even more, but the financing and building information also seem more intertwined.
 
A co-op introduces property and transaction features that should not be collapsed into a condo answer. Building information can matter, but valuation, underwriting and board-related processes remain separate issues.
 
People also compare appraised value with the tax assessment and assume one must be wrong. Aren’t those figures created for different purposes and potentially on different schedules?
 
Yes, they should not be treated as interchangeable. The relevant local methods and dates matter. A tax figure alone does not establish what a lender’s appraisal should conclude for a current transaction.
 
Update: the appraisal arrived below the contract price. It uses two older-condition sales in the same building and one nearby renovated sale. The issue seems to be how the condition differences were handled, not a wrong address or size.
 
Focus the response on the stated condition of each comparable and any observable inconsistency in adjustments. If the report already recognized renovation differences, simply preferring the renovated sale may not be enough.
 
I would not dismiss the same-building sales. Shared location and building characteristics can be highly relevant, while finishes may age or appeal differently. The argument needs more than “renovated should win.”
 
Now the contract matters. Possible commercial outcomes include a price change, a buyer contribution, some compromise, or no deal, but nobody here can say which rights exist without the actual New York transaction documents.
 
Should Haruto’s agent contact the appraiser to explain the renovation, or is that likely to create trouble now that the report has been delivered?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top