Saratoga, Condo or Single family? IC new trick?

It's when you share a piece of the property.  Such as your street or front landscape. 
 
It's all dependent on how that given city registers the plot of land your house sits on.  In the case of Irvine, all homes on motor courts are viewed as condos because the county lists the property that way.  That's why a lot of the "single family condos" will have a #<lot number> at the end of the address. 

In terms of appraisals you can get screwed over because they will compare you to all condos in general if the appraiser isn't experienced with Irvine.  The good ones can get the bank to compare you to other "single family condos". 
 
I called a real state lawyer and he clearly said that condo is condo even if it has more than 3500 sqf and single family is single family even if it is smaller than 3500 sqf. you don't own the land even if they say you own. you will get screwed when you want to sell it, bcz condo always appraise a lot lower price than single family. He mentioned that even in 2007-2011 condo price was down significantly compare to single families.

Bottom line is, Saratoga is selling the homes with a single family price now and after that , it is up to you to sell the same home with the condo label on it as single family (price wise).

Anyone knows about the condition of the Mendocino homes? Are those homes have the condo label on them too? with the price of single family? or the story is different for Mendocino? 
 
Tribune said:
I called a real state lawyer and he clearly said that condo is condo even if it has more than 3500 sqf and single family is single family even if it is smaller than 3500 sqf. you don't own the land even if they say you own. you will get screwed when you want to sell it, bcz condo always appraise a lot lower price than single family. He mentioned that even in 2007-2011 condo price was down significantly compare to single families.

Bottom line is, Saratoga is selling the homes with a single family price now and after that , it is up to you to sell the same home with the condo label on it as single family (price wise).

Anyone knows about the condition of the Mendocino homes? Are those homes have the condo label on them too? with the price of single family? or the story is different for Mendocino?

Saratoga is selling at the price that a property of its size and type is selling for in Irvine.  Mendocino has similar square footage as Saratoga and costs about $80-100K more.

When you talk about condo prices...you're basically talking about attached condos.  A SFR generally sells at a higher price because you generally get a bigger lot.  For Saratoga, you lose a driveway.

You are not going get screwed on appraisals because appraiser uses comparable to get prices. 

Take this Stonetree Manor for example:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Irvine/107-Sanctuary-92620/home/7216802

It's still being listed at $461 sq. ft...pretty inline with SFRs in the area.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
This question always comes up and someone who knows real estate law or whatever governs this type of issue needs to join TI as a member.

As far as I know, condos are not really defined by:

1. Lot size: There are SFRs on smaller than 3500 sft lots in Irvine and they are not condos. Conversely, there are homes on lots larger than 3500 sft and can be classified as condos (I think Turtle Rock might have some).
2. Attached/Detached: There are condos in Woodbury East where not a single wall is shared but it's still a condo. There are homes in Woodbridge, Turtle Rock and University Park that share walls and/or are zero lot line but are SFRs, not condos.

In the end, it's what is shown in your legal documents, no matter what the salesperson says.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.
 
here is the legal definition in CA of a condo:

here is the link http://blog.aklandlaw.com/2005/10/a...pending-upon-the-statute-most-likely-nothing/

It is found in Civil Code section 1351 (f), which reads:

    (f) A "condominium project" means a development consisting of condominiums. A condominium consists of an undivided interest in common in a portion of real property coupled with a separate interest in space called a unit, the boundaries of which are described on a recorded final map, parcel map, or condominium plan in sufficient detail to locate all boundaries thereof. The area within these boundaries may be filled with air, earth, or water, or any combination thereof, and need not be physically attached to land except by easements for access and, if necessary, support. The description of the unit may refer to (1) boundaries described in the recorded final map, parcel map, or condominium plan, (2) physical boundaries, either in existence, or to be constructed, such as walls, floors, and ceilings of a structure or any portion thereof, (3) an entire structure containing one or more units, or (4) any combination thereof. The portion or portions of the real property held in undivided interest may be all of the real property, except for the separate interests, or may include a particular three-dimensional portion thereof, the boundaries of which are described on a recorded final map, parcel map, or condominium plan. The area within these boundaries may be filled with air, earth, or water, or any combination thereof, and need not be physically attached to land except by easements for access and, if necessary, support. An individual condominium within a condominium project may include, in addition, a separate interest in other portions of the real property.
 
SFR need to meet zoning standard of 10 feet setback at rear yard, 5 feet at side, and 15 feet front setback from the street.  Unless the builder request a alternative setback with the city and approved by the city, SFR need to met these standard.  Otherwise builder will just call the project a condo and apply the appropriate building permit for it.

Saratoga did not have a 15 feet set back from the street as a true SFR, but there are few home at Saratoga with a drive way, are those unit consider SFR?

The mighty and powerful TIC did get approve for alternative setback for Mulberry (California garage portion only have 5 ft setback to the rear lot line) and Mendocino (3 feet side setback at the garage in some models).

As the builder get alternative setback request approved from the city,  they blurred the line between SFR and detach condo even more. 

 
Tribune said:
I called a real state lawyer and he clearly said that condo is condo even if it has more than 3500 sqf and single family is single family even if it is smaller than 3500 sqf. you don't own the land even if they say you own. you will get screwed when you want to sell it, bcz condo always appraise a lot lower price than single family. He mentioned that even in 2007-2011 condo price was down significantly compare to single families.

Bottom line is, Saratoga is selling the homes with a single family price now and after that , it is up to you to sell the same home with the condo label on it as single family (price wise).

Anyone knows about the condition of the Mendocino homes? Are those homes have the condo label on them too? with the price of single family? or the story is different for Mendocino?



Regarding the land ownership:
In general, if you live in a detached condo, you own the home and, unlike attached, the land directly under the home.
However, without looking at exact contract document, it's not always right Condos do not own the land.
I just checked Saratoga contract documents and bunch of others provided by IP and it seems buyer owns the land + all easements + fractional fee interest in common area.


Components of Condominium Ownership.

Each Condominium in this Phase includes all of the following components:

(a) a separate interest in a Condominium Unit as defined in Section 1351(f) of the California Civil Code,
    consisting of the following element in accordance with the plans and specifications for each Condominium
    Unit, as more particularly shown and described on the Phase X plan  .....
    Each Phase X Condominium Unit includes the afore-described envelope of space and all Improvements located therein (including, but not limited to, the Dwelling).
(b) all easements (exclusive and non-exclusive) appurtenant to the respective Condominium Unit
(c) a undivided fractional fee interest in the Phase X Common Area

As Inc said, in Irvine, TIC blurred the line between SFR and detached condo.
 
akirvine79 said:
Tribune said:
I called a real state lawyer and he clearly said that condo is condo even if it has more than 3500 sqf and single family is single family even if it is smaller than 3500 sqf. you don't own the land even if they say you own. you will get screwed when you want to sell it, bcz condo always appraise a lot lower price than single family. He mentioned that even in 2007-2011 condo price was down significantly compare to single families.

Bottom line is, Saratoga is selling the homes with a single family price now and after that , it is up to you to sell the same home with the condo label on it as single family (price wise).

Anyone knows about the condition of the Mendocino homes? Are those homes have the condo label on them too? with the price of single family? or the story is different for Mendocino?



Regarding the land ownership:
In general, if you live in a detached condo, you own the home and, unlike attached, the land directly under the home.
However, without looking at exact contract document, it's not always right Condos do not own the land.
I just checked Saratoga contract documents and bunch of others provided by IP and it seems buyer owns the land + all easements + fractional fee interest in common area.


Components of Condominium Ownership.

Each Condominium in this Phase includes all of the following components:

(a) a separate interest in a Condominium Unit as defined in Section 1351(f) of the California Civil Code,
    consisting of the following element in accordance with the plans and specifications for each Condominium
    Unit, as more particularly shown and described on the Phase X plan  .....
    Each Phase X Condominium Unit includes the afore-described envelope of space and all Improvements located therein (including, but not limited to, the Dwelling).
(b) all easements (exclusive and non-exclusive) appurtenant to the respective Condominium Unit
(c) a undivided fractional fee interest in the Phase X Common Area

As Inc said, in Irvine, TIC blurred the line between SFR and detached condo.

I looked at my docs...I own the land and the improvement.
 
Here's an excerpt from the IP's application with Irvine's planning commission for alternative setback:

"Alternative setback standards are a way of recognizing that housing developments do
not need to adhere to age-old setback standards in order to provide safe, quality
neighborhoods. Housing styles and needs have changed over the years and will
continue to evolve; alternative setback standards are a way for the City to recognize
and foster this evolution of housing provided it retains the quality of neighborhood
development expected of Irvine."

According to IP, SFR are so 1990's, detach-condo is the new black. :eek:
 
The setback requirements are probably city specific. It seems like driver is whether there is a shared ownership in anything. For example in Saratoga the motor court is shared by the various homes on any particular lot and the homes on the lot perhaps have an ownership interest in the motor court and therefore Saratoga is a detached comdo
 
BuddyLeo said:
Bottom line folks, Saratoga is a condo and it will list as a condo under the MLS when you want to resale. Good luck with that.

No luck needed.  Like I noted previously...Stonetree Manor is a condo with two HOA fees and is selling quite nicely.
 
BuddyLeo said:
Bottom line folks, Saratoga is a condo and it will list as a condo under the MLS when you want to resale. Good luck with that.
Won't it list however the listing agent wants it to list?

There are several times I've seen condos list as SFRs on the MLS.
 
OpenSky said:
Irvinecommuter said:
Tribune said:
I called a real state lawyer and he clearly said that condo is condo even if it has more than 3500 sqf and single family is single family even if it is smaller than 3500 sqf. you don't own the land even if they say you own. you will get screwed when you want to sell it, bcz condo always appraise a lot lower price than single family. He mentioned that even in 2007-2011 condo price was down significantly compare to single families.

Bottom line is, Saratoga is selling the homes with a single family price now and after that , it is up to you to sell the same home with the condo label on it as single family (price wise).

Anyone knows about the condition of the Mendocino homes? Are those homes have the condo label on them too? with the price of single family? or the story is different for Mendocino?

Saratoga is selling at the price that a property of its size and type is selling for in Irvine.  Mendocino has similar square footage as Saratoga and costs about $80-100K more.

When you talk about condo prices...you're basically talking about attached condos.  A SFR generally sells at a higher price because you generally get a bigger lot.  For Saratoga, you lose a driveway.

You are not going get screwed on appraisals because appraiser uses comparable to get prices. 

Take this Stonetree Manor for example:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Irvine/107-Sanctuary-92620/home/7216802

It's still being listed at $461 sq. ft...pretty inline with SFRs in the area.

Except the other STMs are listed sub $400 psf.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Irvine/113-Lamplighter-92620/home/7201465http://www.redfin.com/CA/Irvine/172-Wild-Lilac-92620/home/7210960

Wild Lilac is in escrow below asking.

STMs aren't worth anything close to $461 psf.

Why?

I've thought a lot about this.... STMs are only attractive to a narrow segment. They are large enough to be SFRs but they have no lots to speak of. They look great and the trim level is nice, yet the HOAs are similar to an attached product. And they're lumped location-wise with the other attached product.

So it ends up serving a very niche market -- someone who doesn't want the hassle of a yard, who is OK living in the denser portion of WB, who doesn't want to share a wall but is OK paying attached-condo HOA premiums. The majority of folks shrug and say "why not just get an SFR?!"

It's isn't as simple as "detached condo" vs. "attached condo." The HOAs, location and product all play a part in determining value. For my money, upon reflection, I'd rather just do something attached for less purchase price or a true SFR for lower overall operating costs+more home.

I agree with this...I mean every house is sort of unique, even if it is build by the same builder and same designs.

Aside:  There is something seriously fishy about that Lamplighter property...it was sold the October of last year for a $184K loss only to be relisted at $150K more a week later? 

I'm also not sure what's going on with Lilac...it's on the market of 109 days at a lower price.

This Stonetree sold for $418/sqft
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Irvine/170-Intrigue-92620/home/7216808

This Cortile sold for $478/sqft
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Irvine/110-Great-Lawn-92620/home/7210196
 
akirvine79 said:
In Irvine, newly built homes without driveway are probably all condos. ;)

You probably right but here's a unique situation with Saratoga,  there are several units of Saratoga with a drive way.

I remember there's at least 2 lot with a full car length drive way and IP ask 20k lot premium for it.  Will these home consider SFR and rest of neighborhood  consider detach condo?

 
Back
Top