April 6, 2011

Substandard but buildable lot! no value/no foundation no reports AS IS-WHERE IS (not guaranteed) No no no with restrictions

Thanks to Burbed reader Real Estater who shared this house in comments, and calls this “Unbeatable value in 94301.”  I think he misspelled “Uninhabitable.”

434 FULTON St, Palo Alto, CA 94301


SQ. FT.: 1,224
$/SQ. FT.: $490
LOT SIZE: 3,936 Sq. Ft.
PROPERTY TYPE: Detached Single Family
COMMUNITY: Crescent Park
COUNTY: Santa Clara
MLS#: 81113725
STATUS: Active
ON REDFIN: 1 day

Strictly Land Value! Substandard but buildable lot! Existing structure no value/no foundation. No reports. AS IS-WHERE IS for house, systems, any pers. prop. Buyers to do all due diligence in advance. Per City PA (not guaranteed. Buyer to independently investigate/confirm) No 2nd story or basement allowed. New Requires 1 covered + 1 uncovered parking. .45% FAR with restrictions.

imageAnother refreshing entry!  How many homes for sale in Palo Alto have the word “substandard” in the listing or say the house has no value or foundation?  Too few!  And no reports.  And no 2nd story or basement.  Remember, you may deserve a Yes in San Jose, but all you’re getting in Palo Alto is a bunch of No no no no no (buyer to independently investigate/confirm).

As to the .45% FAR;  It does say POINT four five percent above, right?  Decimal point and a percentage. Math class is tough! 

That means 0.0045 of the land can be built on.  So, .0045 times 3936, carry the three, um… you can build a 17.712 square foot structure on this lot.  Yes, under eighteen square feet.  Here is something that is 18 square feet, the kitchen on the right.

imageOh, wait, the rotating kitchen uses up 18 square feet.  We need something that shows how much room you have if your living space is 18 square feet. How about this half-bath plan!

So, the realtard can’t do math and clearly slept through fifth grade when decimals and percentages were covered. Just the trained professional you want representing you in a $600,000 transaction involving lots and lots of minutiae like building codes and escrow balance sheets.  He really meant 45% or .45 FAR.  Palo Alto would never restrict you to an eighteen square foot house when tearing down a 99 year old scraper.  (Piedmont would.)

That means you can build up to a 1771.2 sf house on the substandard lot, whoops, you need a covered parking space plus an uncovered one, guess you better take 200 feet off for the mandatory one-car garage.  Still, a 1571 sf house is bigger than what’s there now.  Plus it will have the added advantage of having luxurious extras such as a foundation. And value.

Comments (16) -- Posted by: madhaus @ 5:08 am

16 Responses to “Substandard but buildable lot! no value/no foundation no reports AS IS-WHERE IS (not guaranteed) No no no with restrictions”

  1. sfbubblebuyer Says:

    Wow, Real Estater gets his own tag!

    Gotta love Palo Alto deuces!

    And CLEARLY you should build a duplex on this lot. 2 800 sqft studio apartments, one with a garage and one with a parking spot!

  2. Petsmart Groomer Says:

    The realtor forgot to mention it’s in a flood zone.

  3. SEA Says:

    Light bulbs and Drano–cannot think of much else.

    “New Requires 1 covered + 1 uncovered parking.” Sounds like the land doesn’t have much value.

    My offer: .45% of $2M.

  4. nomadic Says:

    You weren’t kidding about all of the “no” in this listing. What’s with the location info?

    Location Information

    * Cross Street: University and Lytton
    * In Flood Zone (See Report)
    * In Flood Zone
    * No
    * In Fault Zone (See Report)

  5. nomadic Says:

    The house behind this one has a fully-paved lot. I can’t believe PA allows that.

  6. gallileo Says:

    #5: The lot behind this one is a business, so that’s how they managed to get it paved.

    This “sale” includes all personal property too. In other words, someone must have died or something and no one wants to clean it out or up–wouldn’t surprise me if they didn’t find all the bodies.

    The only thing preventing this from being a foreclosure is probably that it’s last sale was over thirty years ago and the owners are probably too old to sign for a HELOC.

    Remind me, is this on the right side of Middlefield? Because if it is, you could double your money soon. Just add a little draino!

  7. SEA Says:

    How about some instant equity?

    Redfin nearby similar property:

    1106 Carlton Ave

    Mar 02, 2011 Listed (New) $289,000 — EBRD #40511973
    Mar 30, 2007 Sold (Public Records) $700,000 12.5%/yr Public Records
    Jan 21, 2005 Sold (Public Records) $541,000 12.6%/yr Public Records
    Jan 07, 2003 Sold (Public Records) $425,000 — Public Records

  8. sfbubblebuyer Says:

    Oh, #7, you just jumped across the 101 and found an almost correctly priced property! That’s EAST Menlo there! $289k is about right as it will almost cash flow there at today/s terrible rates. An all cash investor need only rent it for 1500 to get a 6% return on it.

  9. SEA Says:

    “…found an almost correctly priced property!”

    Correctly priced at 60% off the previous selling price…

    Instead of 12.5% annual appreciation, this place has gone down by 25% annually. In less than four years, start with $700,000 and turn it into $289,000 (before expenses).

  10. madhaus Says:

    Pride of ownership. You can’t put a price on that.

  11. SEA Says:

    Which has the greatest pride of ownership for a place that sold for $700k four years ago:

    1. Paying $289k.
    2. Paying $1.4M.

    I’m thinking the more you pay, the greater the pride of ownership. How else could it be?

  12. Falcor Says:

    I have to agree with Real Estater, 434 Fulton is a great value.

  13. madhaus Says:

    #12, I agree, great value for the seller.

  14. Wendi Says:

    I used to live around the corner from this house. I don’t think anyone has lived in this house for awhile. It was obvious it has been vacant. This is a cute area, right next to downtown.

  15. Real Estater Says:

    The sister house to this one, 575 Oxford, sold for $630K.

  16. Aniket Says:

    To all the jokers here who thought this house wasn’t worth $600K in 2011:
    It sold for $2.16 Million in 2013. It is valued at $2.5 Million in 2017

Leave a Reply

Please be nice. No name calling, no personal attacks, no racist stuff, no baiting, etc. Let's be nice to each other in the true Bay Area spirit! (Comments may be edited/removed without notice.)