Real Property Review Appraisal Practice
What the reviewer actually does
Real property review appraisal practice centers on forming an independent, supportable opinion about the quality of another appraiser's work product - not simply restating the original value. The reviewer must determine whether the report is credible (worthy of belief) and compliant with the applicable standards, then decide whether the value conclusion is adequately supported. Know the difference between a technical review (compliance and methodology) and an administrative/field review, and understand when the reviewer must develop their own value opinion versus merely commenting.
Concepts to master
- Highest and best use analysis and whether the original appraiser tested it properly.
- The three approaches (sales comparison, cost, income) and reconciliation logic.
- Scope of work rule: the reviewer's own scope must be stated and appropriate to the assignment.
- Extraordinary assumptions and hypothetical conditions - flagging unsupported ones is a classic review finding.
Traps
Questions often present a report that is internally consistent but under-supported (no market data, unsupported adjustments). A credible-looking report can still fail. Another trap: confusing the reviewer's opinion with the original appraiser's - the reviewer's value must be independently supported, not borrowed. Watch for reports that omit the reconciliation or misapply a condition.
Rule of thumb
If a reviewer cannot trace an adjustment or conclusion to market evidence in the report, the finding is "not adequately supported" - regardless of whether the number seems reasonable. Support, not plausibility, is the test.