ASFMRA RPRA common mistakes
ASFMRA RPRA · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Accepting the client's stated intended use and user without testing whether they are consistent with the assignment scope, then reviewing the report against an unstated standard.
Reviewers assume the assignment's purpose is self-evident and skip the step of documenting the review's own scope of work, so the review criteria are never fixed before the report is judged.
What to do instead
Before reading the appraisal, write a one-page review scope memorandum: intended use, intended users, definition of value, effective date, property rights, and the standard of review to be applied. Judge the report only against that written scope.
Treating a review as a re-appraisal and substituting the reviewer's own value conclusion for the appraiser's without first determining whether the original opinion is credible.
Reviewers who are strong appraisers default to solving the valuation problem themselves; the review format invites a value number, and it is easier to produce one than to critique the reasoning behind another's.
What to do instead
Structure the review in two explicit stages: first a completeness and credibility determination on the appraiser's work, then, only if required by the engagement, an independent conclusion. Label each stage separately and state whether the reviewer concurs, concurs with comment, or dissents.
Writing review findings as adjectives ('the comparable selection was weak') rather than citing the specific data, page, or analysis step that fails and the standard it fails against.
Reviewers form a holistic impression and then write it up impressionistically, mirroring the narrative style of appraisal reports rather than the evidence-based style of review.
What to do instead
For each finding, use a three-part sentence: the specific element observed, the requirement or test it fails, and the effect on the value conclusion. If the effect cannot be traced, downgrade the finding to a comment.
Selecting sales that are geographically close but economically dissimilar, ignoring soil capability class, irrigation status, water rights, or typical farm size for the subject's region.
Proximity is the easiest attribute to verify and distance is visible on a map, so comparable selection drifts toward nearby parcels even when the local sales are hobby farms or transitional tracts.
What to do instead
Build a comparability matrix weighted by the subject's highest-and-best-use drivers (land class, water, productivity, building complement, access) before ranking by distance. Document why each rejected sale was rejected.
Valuing irrigated land without verifying the water right's type, priority date, duty, and transferability, and without reflecting any difference between the right and the physical water supply.
Water rights are invisible in a site inspection and are recorded in a separate administrative system; candidates rely on the seller's or owner's characterization rather than the adjudicated record.
What to do instead
Obtain the water right documentation and confirm element by element: source, priority, rate and volume, place and type of use, and any transfer restrictions. Adjust comparables for right type and reliability, and state the assumption if records are unavailable.
Applying a single overall capitalization rate drawn from comparable sales to a subject whose risk profile, lease structure, or income durability differs materially, without reconciling the difference.
Rates are treated as a market fact to be looked up rather than a conclusion requiring support; the extraction process and its sensitivity to the comparables' terms are skipped.
What to do instead
Show the rate derivation (source of each comparable's rate, band-of-investment or extraction method), then explicitly reconcile to the subject's risk factors: tenant quality, lease term, expense structure, and capital reserve needs.
Reporting a highest and best use conclusion that is merely the current use, without testing the four tests (legally permissible, physically possible, financially feasible, maximally productive) for any alternative.
Current use is the path of least resistance and the tests feel academic; candidates fill the section with boilerplate rather than running an actual analysis.
What to do instead
Run and document each test for at least one realistic alternative use, including a rough feasibility calculation. State the conclusion as a specific use, timing, and intensity, and confirm it is consistent with the comparables actually used.
Ignoring the jurisdiction's specific certification, competency, and record-keeping requirements and answering ethics questions from general professional intuition.
Candidates study ethics as abstract principles and never map them onto the concrete obligations (competency before acceptance, disclosure of prior services, workfile retention, permitted contingent fees) that the exam tests.
What to do instead
Build a one-page obligations table: obligation, trigger, documentation required, and prohibited conduct. Practice applying it to short scenarios until the trigger is recognized from the fact pattern rather than from memory of a rule number.
Missing the conflict-of-interest and independence analysis when the reviewer has a prior relationship with the appraiser, the property, or the parties, and proceeding without disclosure.
Independence is assessed only in the obvious case (direct financial interest) and not in the common ones: prior appraisal of the same property, advocacy for a party, or an ongoing referral relationship.
What to do instead
Run a written independence screen at engagement acceptance covering prior work on the property, relationships with the appraiser and parties, and any compensation contingent on the outcome. Disclose and decline or manage before accepting.
Reviewing only the report document and never reconciling it to the workfile, the data sources, or the physical property, so unsupported statements pass as supported.
The report is the visible artifact and the engagement letter often names only the report; candidates treat the review as a document proofread rather than a verification of the appraisal process.
What to do instead
Design the review plan around three evidence streams: the report, the workfile and data sources, and an independent property inspection or data pull. State in the review which streams were used and qualify the opinion where workfile access was denied.