Square footage inflation: How big?

Unfortunately this is a real problem which reflects badly on the entire real estate profession.

I have a condo listed for sale. My neighbors below me also have theirs listed - showing their unit as 228 sq. ft. larger than mine. The only difference between mine and theirs is they have an 84 sq. ft. entry I don't have. They are overstating their sq. footage by 163 sq. ft. Do they think buyers won't figure this out?

I can't tell you how many times I've found these discrepancies in listings. When I've asked (sometimes confronted) agents about it they merely shrug their shoulders. In truth, shame on any buyer who doesn't do his or her due diligence but this leads to a situation where sellers and brokers tacitly conspire to "find" extra square footage to justify the appreciation they desire.

There IS a standard method for measuring square footage: ANSI Z765. Its currently unenforceable, but I think it should be added to the laws that govern builders and real estate agents.

I've seen decks, porches, basements, unfinished attics, and garages included in the square footage for homes.

It should be easy enough for someone with MLS access and some computer savvy to link to the assessors website, or other public info source and check for discrepancies. Sometimes there are additions or whatnot that were added, and so the public record is incorrect, but more often that not its a matter of inflation.

On a side note:
Are there clean laws/regulations, which define in detail how the sqt is actually measured? E.g minimum height of cieling, different purpose fo rooms etc. , because even in germany, where there is about a 100 page regulation/instruction on how to measure the offcial sqft, different people come up with dfferent results.
And yes if you have something else than the town records, you should provide evidence how you come up with it.
In my neighourhood a hosue resently sold (over 1 weekend), where the town records are in the 1200er and the listing was for over 1800, typical inclusion of non window basement

I've been in hundreds and hundreds of places for sale.

I don't think I've ever once seen the square feet listed accurately.

In fairness, it's pretty consistently around 15% too high, so if you are comparing to other places, it actually is a wash.

It can be hilarious. Take the south end. There are only a few different floor plates - the townhouses apartments are in come in certain standardized widths, and lengths are also pretty standard - you know if you are in an odd sized one. Yet square footage measurements are all over the place. As a practical matter, a south end apartment is going to be roughly 500, 600, or 700 a floor. Yet you find numbers like 860.... on a one bed with a hall/stairway that should be subtracted from a 700 sqft plate...

Even in new developments I've found things off - allocated common areas rolled into the square footage measurement, even though any attempt to put a bureau in your allocated bit of hallway won't go over well...

Real Estate agents/brokers are one click away from the public record for 95 percent of the properties listed on the MLS. Some new construction and a few condo complexes may not be available.

I email the particular public record property page to clients when they want to see a property or have some interest in a particular property.

Property records and assessment information are available online for most municipalities in the Commonwealth.

Why are people surprised about this? Lying about square footage is the oldest trick in the Dirt Merchant book.

we've run into this problem since our condo has been on the market. the unit across the street from us (first floor of a two family ) is listed in Boston city records as being an 876 square foot one bedroom. Then the broker listed property as 1202 square foot two bedroom and priced it within $500 of our two bedroom 1100 square foot unit. The broker explained that she included an unfinished basement storage room with low, unfinished ceilings and no direct entrance into the unit (you needed to walk into the common area to take a common staircase down to the basement) in the square footage calculation. I thought this was pretty ridiculous, but figured that there isn't much that I could do about it.

That unit sold last month for a price well below what both of our units was listed at and now we're stuck with the comp. I'm guessing that there's no recourse for me, but has anyone ever dealt with a similar situation and been able to address it with the seller or seller's broker?

I have experienced the same problem...

In the suburbs, a town assessor will often estimate the square footage by measuring outside of the home. He will calculate a measurement and multiply it by the number of floors. If the home has two floors, but a cathedral ceiling in the family room, the assessor does not subtract square footage to account for the fact that the cathedral ceiling is not floor space. Instead, it is counted as second floor square footage.

I highly recommend using a service like Dimensions to get the actual square footage. It is a great service for buyers, sellers and real estate agents alike. It is very cheap to do and can save you from inaccurate town records.

Joan, Brian (and future posters):

Details! I appreciate the information you've shared, but what I'd love are some specifics that others can verify. What's the address of the unit that overstated its square footage? Who's the broker?

You're welcome to have the discussion in the abstract, but I'd also welcome some respondents willing to point fingers.

I'd like to point out that at least with respect to condominiums, the law requires an achitect-certified floor plan of each unit to be attached to a condominium master deed. You can ask the seller for the condominium documents, or search by the address online at the Registry of Deeds (http://www.masslandrecords.com contains certain registries). If renovations have taken place within the unit, the floor plan may not be 100% accurate (although the owner is supposed to file an amendment to the master deed with the new floor plan attached after any renovations), but this provides you with a more accurate square footage than the assessor's database or MLS listing sheet.
Of course, this doesn't help for townhouses, which don't have the same master deed filing requirements as condominiums.

I bought a condo in Bay Village last October and dealt with a similar issue. The city documents have the condo square footage listed at about 200 sq. feet less than the actual sq. footage (as determined by sellers agent and my buyer's agent). Better for my taxes I suppose, but I was initially concerned about the discrepency. I am not sure if it's a result of the renovation that occured there 5 years ago or how the city determines the actual sq. footage, but I agreed with the agents and when I re-sell, I will list at the same "inflated" square footage.

How often does the city determine size? I am not sure of the source of the discrepency, but perhaps somebody could explain.

I see this all the time in closings involving condos. The information the city assessor has and the MLS listing sheets are notoriously incorrect and never should be relied on. I think it is a mix of unscrupulous people and oversight. The average consumer wouldn't know to do this but most registries of deeds are online now and people should be pulling the condo docs and comparing the square feet listed in the unit deed, the master deed, and the MLS listing sheet to make sure that they match. This step gets skipped probably about 99% of the time these days.

It can be difficult to sue the seller after the closing but if you have a representation in the P&S and the new deed reflecting the square footage as represented it will be much easier to prove fraud. The P&S will have what is called a "merger clause" which invalidates all representations not included in it, and is unactionable unless a provision is noted to "survive the closing" (intentional fraud is actionable but can be difficult to prove). Statements in the deed, however, do survive.

Binyamin,

I was refering to 7 Albion Place in Charlestown, Carole Adolph of Otis & Ahearn was the broker.

Per ANSI Z765 the correct way to measure is clearly defined, and it's the outside wall dimensions. This is what assessors and most appraisals use. It means that the home will be +/- 5 to 20% smaller if you measure it based on the inside dimensions. Also, Z765 states that any space that is not 100% above grade shall be clearly noted. Realtors in my experience tend to use the outside dimensions (usually directly from the assessors card) and that will always be larger that the actual usable interior space.

Specifics? Try MLS# 70727801 in Waltham. This two family is listed as 3,631 square feet. Compare that to the Waltham assessors listing, (http://waltham.patriotproperties.com/Summary.asp?AccountNumber=36892) and you find the follow calculation: The main part of the building is listed as 1,110 square feet, the front porch (concrete slab) at 70 sq ft, the back porch (also a concrete slab) at 40 sq ft, and the side porch (again concrete slab) at 56 sq ft. Add to this the closed in porch (now acting as a kitchen) of 135 sq ft, and voila! Main house times 3 floors, plus a bit of concrete and an enclosed porch equals the listing square footage. Make your own call, but I don’t think this is a very honest way to calculate living space.

For those following along:

1. Thanks to Brian and TJ. I'll check both out and ask the real estate agent for comment.

2. ANSI Z765 is a purely voluntary standard promulgated by the American National Standards Institute. In my understanding, it was developed at the request of the National Association of Home Builders to standardize the measurement and representation of square footage in the new-home market.

I have no idea how many homebuilders have volunteered to toe the line, but it sure doesn't seem like many real estate agents have signed up.

Binyamin,

after reading some of the posts here, I decided to look up the master deed online for that property. as some posters above suggested, the city's assesment numbers and the master deed don't line up. the city assesment lists the unit at 863 square feet. the master deed lists it at 1202 for the first floor and a portion of the basement. so it looks like the broker had more of a leg to stand on, even though I have a tough time thinking of that basement as "living space"

As an appraiser and broker with 18 years in the business I find that this is a constant problem in the industry. Often times brokers will "round up" to make the property bigger on paper. Often times real estate agents don't check puclic record. Often times they rely on someone else's info, instead of conducting their own due diligence. Often times, especially with condos and conversions, developers will include stairways, exterior entry ways, balconies/decks and whatever else they can to increase the living area. Often times, public record is wrong (depends on town to town). Often times appraisers are wrong. Measuring the exterior of the building will generally give you the best and/or closest figure..."LET THE BUYER BEWARE".

Tell me how this property could possibly be 2689 sq ft, as listed in MLS... MLS#70713976 in Bolton, MA. Calculated living area from posted room dimensions equals ~1400 sq ft. The listing agent will not recognize this obvious exaggeration, citing the town records dictate GLA.

Room Level Features Dimensions
Master BR Full Bath, Cathedral Ceils, Wall to Wall Carpet 14X11 (154 sq ft)
Bedroom 2 Wall to Wall Carpet 13X11 (143 sq ft)
Bedroom 3 Wall to Wall Carpet 13X11 (143 sq ft)
Bedroom 4 Skylight, Wall to Wall Carpet, Interior Balcony 10X9 (90 sq ft)
Bathroom 1 Full Bath, Ceramic Tile Floor 4X6 (24 sq ft)
Bathroom 2 Full Bath, Skylight, Ceramic Tile Floor, Hot Tub/Spa 12X7 (84 sq ft)
Bathroom 3 Full Bath, Ceramic Tile Floor 8X7 (56 sq ft)
Dining Room 11X10 (110 sq ft)
Family Room Hard Wood Floor 17X14 (238 sq ft)
Kitchen Ceramic Tile Floor 12X11 (132 sq ft)
Laundry Room
Living Room Hard Wood Floor 17X14 (238 sq ft)
=1412 sq ft

Here is a good explanation of Living Area.

http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20050607_calcuatefootage.htm

I also would like to point out that more often than not there are two (2) numbers. GLA and Net or actual Living Area. In the case of condominiums the two are almost always equal. GLA commonly refers to the Gross Living Area and the standard of practice is to multiply the length & width of the foundation (outer wall dimensions) by the total number of Livable floors. Basements and Attics not included. The Net or actual living area might subtract for such things stairways, thickness of walls, chimneys, and unusable space as in the case of rooms with gabled ceilings where the area directly below the sloped ceiling that does not meet minimum ceiling height requirements is uncounted.

Slight variations might be expected, gross overstatements should be pointed out. But remember, it is not an appraisal or Realtor that determines value. In the end it is all up to what a Ready, Willing and Able buyer will pay based upon there perception of value. If it were not for this reason, then why is it that for all practical purposes two almost identical condominiums of equal square footage might attract very different offers? Case in point, look at the value differences for two similar units in a given mid. Rise building separated by say 2 to 3 floors. $10K to $15K per floor moving up are not uncommon as views improve.

Hope this helps.

Question for those in the biz: Is this a recent problem, over the last 10 years or so, or has this been prevalent much longer.

I mean, if this is a recent phenomenon, I would not be surprised. During the boom, it was in everyone's interest to overstate. If an appraiser can overstate the sq footage, they can overstate the price, which means a higher selling price, a bigger commission for the agent, higher taxes for the town, etc.

The square footage stated in the condominium association agreement for our unit quotes a slightly higher square footage than that listed with the town real estate tax assessor. The balcony square footage is not included in the town number. The balcony is covered by the above units and appears to lie within the building footprint for all units, as do the other balconys (does not appear as an external add on), so one might arguet that it is reasonable to quote the higher number. However, it does lie outside and is not part of the internal living space. I can see how there are shades of gray when determining square footage since there can be considerable variability of these "outside" spaces or add on additions that may or may not lie within the initial footprint of the building. I would expect a seller or buyer to state the manner in which they have determined the number that is quoted, not just the source of the number.

Here is a listing with false square footage:

MLS # 70565744

On the broker's website it's listed at 585 sq feet (includes the hallway leading to the unit which deeded to the unit eventhought its not within the units walls. On MLS it lists the sq footage at 645 which includes a hypothetical roofdeck that has not been built at 125sq feet. Actual sq footage of the unit itself is 470 sq. feet. I guess if the hypotheical roofdeck was 400 sq feet this could be a 1,000+ sq. ft. unit!

Perhaps thats why its been on the market for over a year now.

Easy, buy a room sonic measure (Black and Decker sells one for under $25). This can tell you the size of a room in under 5 seconds, and keep track of the various spaces for an easy sum.

I am a city Realtor who suggests having a certified architect measure the condo to both provide useful floor plans and to verify the size. The person I use always measures from the inside of all perimeter walls. He tells me that others may measure from the outside of the perimeter walls which is common for single family homes and not appropriate for condos. The living space must have a ceiling height of at least 6' 6" and does not include any deck/patio or other outside or unfinished basement area. Always reconcile the Master Deed's living area specification with the measured size. A good buyer's agent will help his client have clear visibility to this issue & possible discrepancies. A good seller's agent will ensure the client's property is honestly presented in the most favorable light.

Further to my comment above, "living area" or size is both quantified and also perceived. As indicated, the quantified figure is suspect. The perceived is more ambiguous: high ceilings make a home look larger; same for large windows. "Efficient layout" is a larger useful space! Dark colors give the sense of a smaller space. It even gets more subtle with PSF (price per square foot) which is a statistic and should be used as a relative measurement among properties. Where does this lead to? Beyond Zillow... Buyer should be knowledgeable about value & recognize comparative properties and what is the appropriate to be their new home...and its appropriate price based on current offerings and past sales. No different than how it has been since the beginning...btw, a Realtor can be helpful in gathering all this information.

Andrew-
More realtor SPIN I see....because a buyer can't use the internet to gather info, look at past home sales, look up deeds, liens, and mortgages, HELOC's on a particular home they like, etc. We need someone to get 3% of a home sale to do that? Oh wait- I CAN look up all that information! MLS and public records are free to everyone!

Eventually, a realtor is going to have to tell me what it IS exactly that they do to prove their necessity- as of now, I think RE are VERY good at opening door's and that's about it-but that doesn't warrant thousands of dollars at closing. I may also add that Coldwell Banker is VERY good at adding on an extra 1000 sq ft to their listings and expecting top dollar GROSS AIR SPACE..not living space.

As Frank S. would say- RE are going the way of the dinosaur. Hopefully soon I might add since they are the ones responsible for this log jam of over-priced homes on the market- whispering in the seller's ear that their homes are still worth as much as they were in '03. I'm sorry- but it's not OUR problem if you bought at peak and now you're mortgage is resetting- sorry but you're not going to get 100k over assessed. I'm not giving you you're next down payment.

We have cash, good credit and can close in an instant. Maybe we'll just wait until all the homes we like get foreclosed. :-)

Thanks RE!

Katt,

A smart broker has far more incentive to reduce the listing price for his client than raise it. I am sure that even you would be able to understand that a lower price means a quicker sale with only a marginally reduced commission for the selling broker. If brokers are indeed artificially keeping home prices high by convincing sellers to choose a price at which their home will never sell, the brokers are effectively shooting themselves in the foot.

You are competing for good homes with other buyers who have, "cash, good credit and can close in an instant." You are losing that competition. If anyone needed to buyer's broker to help her "reset" expectations, it would be you.

A smart broker has far more incentive to reduce the listing price for his client than raise it. I am sure that you would be able to understand that a lower price means a quicker sale with only a marginally reduced commission for the selling broker. If brokers are indeed artificially keeping home prices high by convincing sellers to choose a price at which their home will never sell, the brokers are effectively shooting themselves in the foot.

I'm sure you can understand the log jams of homes and the multitude of homes sitting on the market for 296 days and minimal price reductions. Look up the listings- proof's in the MLS. (70623639 )

Look up how many homes are listed above what they paid for them in 2003- tell me they aren't out of their minds. Tough luck if they bought high and are having their mortgage reset this year. You're underwater- oh well. Doesn't mean that I'm going to over pay so I can provide you with your next down payment.

Lets sell a house for more than you paid for it when the market was at it's peak..
For example MLS 70750682
This home is not worth this price in this market. It will sit there since the buyer paid 505k in '04..peak market. The home has clearly lost value.... l can look up data...
Riiiight. So many brokers ARE shooting themselves in the foot- AND are basically worthless.

I assure you- there is NO competition in the area we are looking in- homes are sitting. I can look at a "sign-in" sheet at an open house and see how "HOT" this spring market is..and it's anything but. The only names that are on the sheet is my own.

Keep telling yourself that it's not partially your fault that homes aren't selling.

Bitter! Party of one for Katt.