top of page
Search
Writer's pictureTimothy King

What Exactly is Highest and Best Use?

First of all, if there is one thing Highest and Best Use is not, that is exact. But we’ll get to that  later. Briefly, in the context of professional valuation, Highest and Best Use is the use that  results in the highest return to the land value. Simple enough, right? Not really. 


But let’s get the foundation laid first. The appraisal process can be broken down into three parts.  The first part is a site visit and conducting a survey for information about the subject property.  The second part is the consideration of Highest and Best Use. The third part is the research and  analysis that goes into the formation of an opinion of value. The Highest and Best Use considers  the information gathered about the subject property and results in a conclusion that establishes  the basis for the valuation. It is sometimes referred to as the bridge between the first part and the  third part of the process. 


In order to be considered the highest and best use of a property, that use must be legally  permissible, physically possible, financially feasible, and resultant in the maximally productive  use for the site. These are the “tests” for Highest and Best Use. They also serve as an outline for  the Highest and Best Use analysis.  


For a use to be legally permissible, it must conform to zoning and building codes. For example,  a commercially zoned parcel might be developed as retail or office or restaurant or housing or – increasingly – a combination, a mixed use. All of these uses must be considered. Further, the  use must be consistent with building codes and any other governmental guidelines and  restrictions. Design criteria outlined in the El Pueblo Viejo District that encompasses most of  downtown Santa Barbara would be an example of government guidelines that must be  considered.  


For a use to be considered physically possible, it must be a use that can be accommodated by the  site. Constraints on that use could include the size and shape of the site, the topography of the  site, drainage, soils, and more. An example of a physical characteristic that could impact use is  shape. A rectangular or square shaped parcel can accommodate most uses. On the other hand, a  long narrow parcel, or a triangular parcel, could result in significant limitations on use.  


For a use to be financially feasible, the cost to develop the property to the use must be at least  offset by the value. For example, assume a site has a value of $500,000 and the cost to build a  2,000 square foot home on the site is $1,000,000. The value of the property after development  must be at least $1,500,000 for the use to be deemed financially feasible. On the other hand,  assume the site had irregular topography which caused the construction cost to increase to  $1,200,000. With no change in value, the use becomes not feasible.  


Finally, for a use to be maximally productive, it must be the use that generates the highest return  to land value. Each of the tests discussed above narrow the list of potential uses. None the less,  there are still alternatives. The fourth test is intended to narrow the list to one use. For an  example, let’s build on the above-mentioned scenario. Let’s say the value generated by the total  of the above site value and construction cost is $1,700,000. This would suggest a return to the

land value of $200,000. Further, let’s assume that an alternative development scheme would be  to build a 3,000 square foot house at a cost of $1,500,000. And, let’s say the resultant value  would be $2,100,000. This would suggest a return to the land value of $100,000. In this  example, the most productive use of the site, the “Highest and Best Use”, would be the more  modest development scenario. See the chart below for clarification. 

Land Value 

Improvement  

Costs

Total Costs? 

Value 

Feasible?  

(Return to the  

Land)

$500,000 

$1,000,000  

(2,000 SF home)

$500,000 +  

$1,000,000 =  

$1,500,000

$1,700,000 

$200,000

$500,000 

$1,200,000 

(2,000 SF home  with irregular  

topography)

$500,000 +  

$1,200,000 =  

$1,700,000 

$1,700,000 

$0

$500,000 

$1,500,000 

(3,000 SF home)

$500,000 +  

$1,500,000 =  

$2,000,000

$2,100,000 

$100,000



Of course, the above is an oversimplification. Highest and Best Use might be exact in concept  but in practice, it is more nuanced. There are many elements that are not allowed for in the  above examples. It could be that the cost to build the larger home would be somewhat lower on  a price per square foot basis due to the economy of scale. It also could be that there would be a  third alternative that might generate an even higher return.  


And finally, in a general sense, it is just not reasonable to presume that an appraiser, without an  extensive investigation and analysis, could pick the single most productive use for the site. For all the above reasons, some appraisers prefer to use the term “Reasonably Productive Use” for  

the site. And that use is assumed to be equivalent to the Highest and Best Use or the purpose of  the valuation.

10 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

What is an MAI Appraisal?

There is no defined “MAI Appraisal”. Some think of it as an appraisal report of a certain  format. Others might say it is a valuation...

REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL: ART OR SCIENCE?

In my years as an appraiser, I have often heard it said that property valuation is a blend of art and science. I don’t think it has...

Comments


bottom of page