Inaccurate square footage

You mention including unfinished basement space, but what about finished basement space and, to a lesser degree, finished attic space with code issues, e.g. too steep stairs? These areas are included almost routinely, perhaps with a disclosure and can inflate square footage by 400 - 500 sf. Do realtors have rules/guidelines etc. to follow regarding including these areas, or it is merely include and disclose -- like using flashers for double-parking?

In the area I live, there is some fudging of square footage (usually by adding in secondary structures, or garage space), but I think that most buyers quickly figure this out. However, what I am seeing more is the square footage just being left out of listings and ads. This is probably due to stricter honesty in disclosure expectations, and increasingly litigious buyers. Otherwise, I often see listing agents describe square footage as being “per county records” deemed, but not guaranteed, to be reliable.

In the past two years, I've encountered more FSBO homes with maddeningly fudged square footage. This usually occurs immediately after these over-priced houses have been listed with real estate offices (documenting the accurate square footage as per county records). Oddly enough, in two cases that I have caught, the FSBO homes also raised the asking price along with the new square footage! I went and looked at these two places, and they were the same modest square footage homes that they were originally listed at.

I have noticed that Zillow seems to allow owners to easily “update” the square footage that appears in the displayed data for their house. A while back I notified Zillow (by using the lengthy form they had at that time) about an example for a house I took a look at that didn't sell with correct info given by the listing agent. Zillow didn't appear to do anything in response to this verifiable information. I still visit Zillow, as there is some info to be gained there, but I don't go there as often as in the past.

This is not to say that agents don't fudge the numbers, I see it all the time. But before we are quick to judge...
Agents are not surveyors or appraisers. It is common practice to use what the tax or public records show as sq. footage. As you mentioned it sometimes includes "dead space." However, it would unethical for agents to represent themselves as surveyors or appraisers so we are limited to use the published numbers. If you mis-measure or calculate you open yourself up to liability. It is best to use a number that is published by an official source. In this particular property's case that number is also used by the town assesors office. To claim that number is inflated also means that the taxes are too high. I'm sure the municipality would disagree. I don't think you can fault the agent for using an official source for her sq footage.

When I see something I would call "fudged," it often has the assessor's database as its source. It includes porches or other unfinished space to inflate the gross living area.
I agree with NF that YOU DON'T want to ask brokers to become surveyors or appraisers. You do want them held to using a public database. I just get frustrated when brokers use the public database poorly.
In North Carolina, brokers are not allowed to use the assessor's information to state a specific number. Instead, the advertise a range. This system is wholly useless to buyers and makes market studies very difficult.

public records on square footage are pretty consistently wrong, in my experience

Thing is in central Boston, everything seems to be wrong by around the same amount - say 15% or so. (always larger, of course). So on a relative basis, it ends up being pretty much the same...

Square footage is not the most important thing about a house. But if you really care about it, bring a tape and measure for yourself.

I think the solution is for agents and FSBO sellers to use the square footage number as stated in the public records. If an interested buyer doubts that figure, I would suggest that they hire a professional surveyor or appraiser for a second opinion.

We verify square footage on all our properties by hiring a floor plan company (New England Floor Plans). We get 2 services – a floor plan to help market the property and accurate square footage numbers. They are the only company we have found that are actually “licensed architects.” We’ve even had them certify the floor plans a couple of times. The best part is it takes the liability off us, and if a buyer ever questions the square footage they call that company and get an explanation directly from them.

Although the square footage is often used by buyers and brokers when "screening" properties and comparing prices (ie $/sq ft), the layout, allocation of of the space, windows and lighting, angles of the walls, storage space (not included in square footage) and ceiling height - angles/gables among various characteristics generally have more meaning. Since we live in a multidimensional world, perhaps it would be more useful to list total interior cubic feet (as we do with refrigerators, which my home felt like last week since I have not yet turned on the heat) instead of square feet !

Wait a minute. I though SF had to be livable, and places like under stairs, etc couldn't be counted in the numbers...

In commercial real estate, there is a measurement standard called the BOMA Standard. It uses a standard method of measurement to measure the usable space of an office building plus the share of common space. I am not sure whether this also applies to residential real estate, but it is a recognized standard by the real estate and architectural industries. It would be worth checking to see if the BOMA Standard of Measurement is a recognized measure for individual homes.

you really don't need a license to use a measuring tape!

When I'm listing a property, I default to the living area that is stated in the public database, and note anything that would add to that, i.e. "an addl 400sq ft in finished basement." I will also check in with the local building department to make sure the additional space was properly documented (sometimes a recent addition may not be reflected in the assessor's numbers).

As a buyer's agent, I also double-check these things, and have noted many "irregularities" with the posted square footage. Examples: posting a number that does NOT match the public number, even though that's the noted info source; including, but not noting, that a basement/attic room is part of the number (and whether or no it is a walk-out); including a screened porch and even a patio in the total.

Sellers (and some agents) lie or don't understand what should and should not be included in the GLA, so I think it's irresponsible for an agent on either side of the transaction to skip the few minutes it takes to double-check this.

I have wondered the same many times when looking for my house in Mass. I don't understand how these public records can be right? I looked at houses with the same square footage as mine, that were literaly about 1/2 to 3/4. Only person to trust is yourselft. And yes, I would ask where to see if the garage is counted or basement and always would get the same anwser that they are not.

John Mc,
The public records are gross living area, not usable living area. Most agents use the public records for their listing sheets, therefore, buyers are stuck with the gross living area figure.
The better agents measure room dimensions and put them on the sheet.
The even better agents hire a floor plan company to draw the property.

Where I live, the public records pretty accurately reflect the foot print of the legally built house structure (as Rona said, the gross living area), minus any decks, carports, etc. Upon examining the interior of the house, I find that many people seem to estimate how much usable living space there is (unless the house is full of clutter) well enough. They might not be able to readily see some modest amount of exaggerated square footage, but they generally notice if the exaggeration is significant.

The place that I notified Zillow about, was a rather small but charming depression era home that was over priced and didn't sell. The owner updated his square footage at Zillow, in order to raise the price further and try to sell the home himself, by adding in the generous square footage of a large chicken coop, and a long tractor shed-- which, I suppose is usable living space... if you're a chicken, or a tractor.

Rona, how might a homeowner have GLA in public record corrected? Also, I have heard that basement space may be counted in GLA if the basement is above grade. What's the scoop on this? About half of our basement is above grade, and we're exploring renovating and adding a bedroom and bathroom in that space. I'm wondering whether this will be counted in the GLA and would love any tips you might have

Dear Mrs._in_Mass,

The assessor's office in your town or city is the place to start, if you want to change your Gross Living Area. Rules vary from municipality to municipality.
Generally, a basement will count in the GLA if it is fully finished (heated, with sheet rock or plaster walls and a floor that is no longer just concrete.) I have seen some that are mostly below grade count, and some didn't count.
You will need to check with zoning in your town or city to find out if you can legally add a bedroom and bathroom in your basement. There are rules about how much window you need, fire exits, and ventilation of your heating equipment for the bedrooms. There is backflow prevention rules for your plumbing in some places. When you renovate a basement to code, it will be added to your GLA. Same with attics.
Remember that the bigger the GLA, the bigger your tax bill. So be careful what you wish for.

living area is determined by measuring the exterior of the dwelling and should only include finished, heated space, that is above grade. basements, finished or otherwise, should not be included. porches, decks, unfinished attic space should not be included. as an appraiser, i have seen assessor's records that have both overstated and understated the living area of homes. to be sure, measure it and calculate it, if you are representing it to a buyer.

Thanks for the discussion on this Rona-
This type of problem can turn out to be a $100k mistake. I truly understand that it IS buyer beware, but even public records are full of human error, no matter what a seller's agent says.

But I must disagree with Charles when he says that square footage is not the most important part of a house- Charles, house prices are based on price per square foot. Would you want to pay for imaginary square feet? I know I wouldn't.

The home that I am referring to is 'off' by about 1500 square feet. Imagine paying for square footage that you can't live in- simply because someone measured the outside of a home or counted a garage, a porch that's not heated, and a room that is no longer in existence. I will stand by my theory that it isn't selling for this very reason, and I highly doubt that a bank will finance a house once an appraiser goes in and sees how truly teeny the home is.

The answer to measuring Gross Living Area (GLA) is that it is done first of all, according to local custom. In Massachusetts for appraisal, assessment and mortgage purposes, GLA usually (not always) conforms to Fannie Mae guidelines. Appraiser's will nearly always treat only areas that are above the basement, finished, heated, and finished like the rest of the dwelling as GLA; with a few exceptions to this. Split entry ranches may have their first floor basement entirely above grade (the ground level), but only the top floor is used as GLA for comparison purposes. A deck house would have both levels included in GLA. To be called a bedroom, Fannie Mae guidelines say it should be over 80 SqFt, have a closet, heat and at least 10 percent window space. Also, for privacy/functional reasons one should not have to walk through a bedroom to get to any other room in the house.

Fannie Mae says in its Selling Guide Chapter XI, section 405.06:
The appraiser must be consistent when he or she calculates and reports the finished above-grade room count and the square feet of gross living area that is above-grade. For units in condominium or cooperative projects, the appraiser should use interior perimeter unit dimensions to calculate the gross living area. In all other instances, the appraiser should use the exterior building dimensions per floor to calculate the above-grade gross living area of a property. Only finished above-grade areas should be used—garages and basements (including those that are partially above-grade) should not be included. We consider a level to be below-grade if any portion of it is below-grade—regardless of the quality of its "finish" or the window area of any room. Therefore, a walk-out basement with finished rooms would not be included in the above-grade room count.

Steve K - Appraiser in Woburn

Katt, houses don't really trade on price per square foot. To make this clear through an absurd comparison, compare a beacon hill condo with a lawrence victorian. For a less obvious comparison, compare a 70s modern house with a classic house in the same neighborhood

Yes, size matters. But usability is often not incorporated into square feet - people would rather 1000 sq ft of usable space, to 1500 square feet of hallway. Sq ft is a rough metric, and paying too much attention to it leads to problems.

And I don't doubt your examples at all - sq ft can be relevant in some cases, and can certainly be mis-used to mislead the unsophisticated. But its really not the most important thing - better to say usable size is important.

Accurate square footage is so important, especially if you are purchasing a home in the city where each square foot makes a big difference.

Let's say you are looking at two comparable condos in Boston with similar amenities, one listed as 1500sf at $950k, and another as 1600sf at $950k. That brings price psf to $633 and $594 respectively, which is a significant delta. Layout definitely plays a large factor in the appeal and value of a property, but when it comes down to it, price psf has a large impact on what a buyer is willing to pay.

Steve K -- Thank you. Your explanation was very helpful.

Charles, I notice a lot of people feel price per square foot is important, especially with comps. I do not compare, nor do I think anyone does a home in lawrence vs a beacon hill condo-today's buyer's deserve more credit, they're certainly more savvy than the buyer's who bought in '05-'06 and are selling now. Obviously you look at price/sq foot with comparable home sales [in your neighborhood].

You speak with word-play.

What I'm trying to say is that this particular home is very expensive for the size it truly is- ~1500 sq ft. If you compare that home to a home in the same town with the same listed size, people are going to see more "value" in the house with the lower price per square foot- especially if it is truly the size that it's listed.

Buyer's DO look at the price/sq ft.

Regretfully, like everything else in life, Charles...size does in fact matter.

Good discussion - and good info provided by some appraisers...thank you.

A note for buyers and sellers - MLSPIN allows the listing agent to enter room dimensions for properties that are for sale; it's not hard to do but is not mandatory, so many agents just skip it. I bought a laser tape measure for about $30, and it makes measuring rooms easy.

Personally, I find the lack of GLA "standards" among real estate agents to be somewhat problematic when trying to compare properites in a market analysis, and can cause a problem when the bank's appraiser finds a discrepancy.

Buyers who have seen a lot of houses can probably sense when something is off, but it's too bad it happens so often.

Nope, no word play, size most certainly matters katt, but its a rather rough metric once again. I don't think you understood my point - hence "absurd comparison"...