Phoenix 2-bed condo at $750,000: how would you adjust the lone closed comp?

E

esme.snow

Real estate agent
Established
I have checked three current listings and found only one completed sale, so the evidence is still thinner than I expected. The property is a 2-bed Phoenix condo of about 2,690 sq ft in average condition, listed at $750,000.

Its light and location look strong, while the dated finishes and possible rental-regulation costs count against it. How much weight would you give the lone closed comp, and how would you grade the condition and extra floor area without creating false precision? I also need the insurance position, maintenance history and current service charges, as those facts could change the valuation more than the asking listings. I’ll obtain a local appraisal before acting on a number.
 
I would treat the completed sale as the starting point and the three listings mainly as evidence of current seller expectations. Don’t apply the comp’s full price per square foot to every extra foot: unusually large condos often need a lower marginal adjustment for additional space. For condition, price the visible updating rather than assigning a broad percentage.
 
How comparable is that one sale, really? Same building or just nearby, similar floor, light, parking and outdoor space? In condos, crossing the street or losing a view can matter more than a modest size difference. Without those details, even a careful floor-area adjustment could create false precision.
 
The missing fact that would change my view most is the association position: current charges, insurance allocation, planned work and any rental restrictions. Also clarify what “lease length” means here—an existing tenant’s remaining term, or minimum lease periods imposed by the association. Those lead to very different valuation questions.
 
I disagree slightly that the association information is automatically the biggest unknown. It matters, but if the closed comp is in a weaker micro-location or has poor light, it may be a bad anchor before any financial adjustments are made. First establish whether a buyer would genuinely see the two units as alternatives.
 
For the dated finishes, I’d separate necessary work from taste. Worn items that a buyer must address deserve a firmer deduction; merely unfashionable finishes may justify less because the next buyer might keep them. Get rough local costs for the obvious work, then add some allowance for disruption rather than using a generic condition percentage.
 
Parking could materially distort the comparison, particularly if spaces differ in number, convenience or legal attachment to the unit. The same applies to private outdoor space. I’d make a simple table for the subject and each comp: closed/asking, building, floor, light, condition, parking, outdoor area, charges and rental terms. The unsupported adjustments will become obvious.
 
At $750,000 the headline figure is roughly $279 per sq ft, but I wouldn’t let that ratio drive the decision. A 2-bed with 2,690 sq ft has a lot of area concentrated in relatively few bedrooms, so layout efficiency matters. Ask whether the extra space functions well or is mostly circulation and oversized rooms.
 
That layout point strengthens the case for viewing the closed comp’s floor plan, not just its stated area. Still, I’d want the association documents and actual recurring charges before settling on an offer. A lower purchase price can be overwhelmed by ongoing costs, while rental limitations may narrow the future buyer pool even if you do not plan to rent.
 
Practical sequence: verify the completed sale details, inspect its photos and floor plan if available, confirm parking and outdoor-space differences, obtain estimates for the dated items, and read the association material for charges, insurance, maintenance plans and leasing rules. Then build a low, middle and high valuation rather than one exact number. That will also give the local appraiser specific assumptions to challenge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top