Selling a home with unpermitted add-ons

Home Sale Hindsight

Inman News®

Q: How do you handle a gigantic unpermitted addition when needing to sell? Must one come clean with the city or are buyers willing to overlook it?

A friend of mine (I know what you're thinking, but really it's not me) has taken his 1,500-square-foot house and made it a 3,000-square-foot house plus two-car garage, completely without permits of any sort. He lives in a million-dollar neighborhood.

Now he's decided that he can't carry the mortgage anymore and needs to sell. While the addition is a substantial improvement to the house in space and quality, I am positive that some of the work is not up to code. He thinks that he can sell "as is" and free himself of the problem. I think he's got a serious problem on his hands.

I think his best bet is to come clean with the city, fix the code violations and pay the fine. I believe if he tries to sell without permits they will find out anyway and fry him. The additional factor is that he bought at the height of the market -- even if the house were permitted, I think he's close to underwater. Any advice? --K.C., Danville, Calif.

A: I'm sure you've heard the adagé that all that matters in real estate is "location, location, location," and the life cliché that "time heals all wounds." Reality check: When it comes to a flawed home being sold, the adage should be "disclosure, disclosure, disclosure," because that's the transactional cure to whatever ails your friend's home.

He has two real options: confess the unpermitted construction to the city or sell the place without permits for the addition. It seems to me that selling it "as is" is much more realistic here, for several reasons.

First off, it is not at all strange in your area for people to sell properties with unpermitted construction work. Homeowners do work without permits, most often, to save money -- not necessarily on the actual construction work or even on the permits, but on the property tax increases that go along with permitted additions, especially those that add significant square footage and value to the home, like your friend's.

In California, a large addition can cause a major hike -- thousands of dollars per year -- to the home's property taxes on an ongoing basis. Accordingly, many homeowners hire licensed contractors and have construction work done to code without obtaining permits for it.

However, even when the construction quality is impeccable and complies with the municipal building codes, it absolutely must be disclosed on sale to have been completed without permits. If the unpermitted construction is an addition that increased the number of bedrooms, bathrooms or square footage, the listing and marketing documents should represent the property as having only the permitted number of beds, baths and square feet. The MLS listing and marketing materials can reference the unpermitted space, but should reference it as just that: "unpermitted" or "unwarranted" extra rooms.

Additionally, the seller's disclosures should specifically inform prospective buyers what work was done without permits, and should encourage buyers to get their own inspections and satisfy themselves with the condition of the property. When construction work has been done with no permits, sellers should take care not to suggest that the work was done "to code," even if that's what they asked the contractor to do.

If your friend prices the property attractively, taking the unpermitted space issue into consideration, there are many buyers who will take on such a project, even knowing that there are code and permit issues. But let's be clear, by attractive pricing, I mean he'd have to price it lower than a home of similar size where all the rooms and square feet were "legal."

If he prices it right, buyers may bite. Many San Francisco Bay Area buyers are unafraid of unpermitted additions. Why? Well, it may cost a buyer less to take on an unpermitted addition and correct it than it would to construct the addition themselves or to buy a fully permitted home of the same size.

And, the fact is, many buyers simply don't care whether the space is permitted if they are satisfied with the condition -- and everyone has different standards about what condition is satisfactory to them.

Under California's standard purchase agreement language, the buyer cannot report the seller or bring government inspectors into the property to call attention to the unpermitted addition.

Many homes with unwarranted work are sold every year in California without the sellers being subject to any governmental action for it; the key issue is to ensure that adequate and accurate disclosures are made to the buyer before sale.

If your friend self-reports to the city, he's probably facing the regular permit fees plus additional fines upwards of 50 percent of the permit fee -- and that doesn't even include the cost of correcting the work, which the city may require him to do before he is able to transfer title, once it is aware of the issue.

Unpermitted construction in California most often operates on a "don't ask, don't tell" policy -- the city won't come in and randomly inspect or require you to fix your home, but once it becomes aware of the issue it can and will come down hard on you until the work is done to its standards (which are often imposed to the most stringent level on known offenders).

If he's close to upside down on the home, it seems very unlikely and even unwise for him to self-report at this phase of the game. He could very quickly end up in a situation where the city won't allow him to sell without doing some major work and paying some major fines, but he can't afford to do the required work or pay the required penalties either.

He would do better to resell the place "as is," with full disclosure about the issues.

There is one in-between solution: If your friend does have some cash at his disposal, it might be a good idea to have a licensed contractor come inspect the property and do the work to bring it as close as possible to code compliance -- especially on any health and safety issues -- without necessarily involving the city.

Tara-Nicholle Nelson is author of "The Savvy Woman's Homebuying Handbook" and "Trillion Dollar Women: Use Your Power to Make Buying and Remodeling Decisions." Tara is also the Consumer Ambassador and Educator for real estate listings search site Trulia.com. Ask her a real estate question online or visit her website, www.rethinkrealestate.com.

                                                   
Contact Tara-Nicholle Nelson:
Facebook Facebook Facebook TwitterFacebook E-mailFacebook Letter to the Editor
Share with REmessenger

You must login or register to post a comment.

 
Submitted by Paul Howard on August 8, 2010 - 4:45am.

It appears that California is more laid back about work done without permits than some areas of the country. Some towns in New Jersey can be downright nasty about it.

One of the things a buyer's agent should do is make an attempt to discover if there is living space finished without a permit. Sometimes it is obvious. A house that was listed and sold 2 years ago with 2 bedrooms and 1 bath and an unfinished walk up attic and now listed with 3 bedrooms and 2 baths should show a corresponding change in the tax assessment. If it doesn't and someone buys it they are in for, at minimum, a tax surprise when the town is reassessed. Worst case, the owner could be required to tear it out.

Paul Howard, Broker
NJHomeBuyer.com Realty
Cherry Hill NJ 08002
http://www.FaceBook.com/homebuyers

 
Submitted by Derek Eisenberg on August 8, 2010 - 5:47am.

Tara,

Your piece is geared for a seller in California but brokers anywhere and sellers in other states need to be a lot more careful.

Brokers are licensed and often have E&O insurance. Lawyers will sue for anything. Lawyers will say that a broker knew an illegal structure was being conveyed and that illegalities can't be disclosed away. Lawyers will say the broker had a duty to go further. What further is defined as depends on the judge that is hearing the case.

Most likely the broker's E&O will settle and the broker will have a blemish when he/she goes to renew.

Illegal can sometimes mean the structure was built too close to the property line and side yard requirements are often developed for fire protection. California is known for it's wild fires and is a prime place where building too close to a neighbor can have devastating effects. If that illegal addition causes combustible material to be closer than it should have been to a neighboring property that also caught on fire as a result, a neighbor who has not signed off on the disclosure may have a cause of action.

Also your article while admittedly written for California was published in Inman; a national publication. Many east coast states require a certificate of continued occupancy (CCO) inspection at closing that triggers municipal awareness of the defect. This can often happen days before the sale when buyers and sellers already have their furniture on the moving truck and brokers are already counting their commission. Finally some states like Vermont even have case law on this topic. The Bianchi case, a 1997 Vermont Supreme Court case outlines what a broker's responsibilities are. In Vermont a seller could not convey by warranty deed because the Supreme Court there declared that legal use is part of the warranty. A seller would have to convey by quit claim deed if selling with disclosed illegalities.

In many states your disclosure option is not a safe option at all and approaching the local building department is the only viable option. Short of approaching the building department in a state without CCO inspections, your "in-between" solution is the only other reasonable one. However, it may be several contractors, an architect and a surveyor to make sure that the addition only needed permits and no bulk or use variances.

Derek Eisenberg
http://www.mls2u.com