My husband and I have started looking at houses in the Atlanta area in anticipation of buying in a few months. I’ve noticed that real estate listings around here don’t include square footage, and just found one realtor website that states, “Traditionally, square footage is not measured nor quoted in the metro Atlanta marketplace.”
Why on earth is this? Square footage is an important piece of information, and I’m having trouble thinking of a good reason why it wouldn’t be given in this market. Sure, it can be fudged, but it does give at least an idea of whether a house is worth looking at. A buyer can get the footage from an agent, but it’s a pain when you’re searching through online listings or picking up info sheets from houses for sale and it’s not listed.
Maybe because it’s a hard specification, and is difficult to verify? I know a guy in Austin who sold his home in the 1980s. The next few years of his life were a living hell because he found out that the actual area differed from what he had advertised when he sold it, by about 100 sq ft. The living hell was in the form of a vicious lawyer for the people he sold the house to.
But it is still common in other areas to list the footage. Atlanta is the first place I’ve been where it’s not normally given. There’s usually some sort of disclaimer to the effect that the footage is approximate, or somesuch, to protect the seller/realtor.
CurtC has it. There is no hard spec under GA real estate rules that clearly defines what “square footage” means. Different ways lead to different numbers. (Esp. when some people consider basements, attics, etc. differently.) Lawsuits come up. Better to leave off the number entirely.
You will also notice that acreage lots are listed as “5 acres +/-”. Same reason. They want to make it clear that the lot might be just a little under 5 acres.
In both cases, if you want to know the area, do it yourself (or have the inspector do it).
So why couldn’t they list 1200 +/- square feet? There must be some other reason other than set way of measuring it. In my area the square footage is almost always listed as “approx. 1200 sq. ft.”
In the Washington, DC metro area – soon to be home of the Washington Senators-3.0 – it is very unusual for square footage to be listed in ads. Realtors here pretty much echo the earlier comments, lack of uniformity in measuring and potential for lawsuits.
(Doesn’t answer the question of why they can’t come to a uniform standard)
We asked our realtor the same question. Apparently, the situation CurtC described had occured many, many times. I may be wrong, but I believe there’s now a law which says you can’t list the square-footage.
Sounds assinine to me, which is about what I would expect. Wouldn’t it be nice to establish a standard way to measure, then give some defined “wiggle room” (+/- 7.5%) then fine the hell out of realtors or sellers who violate this standard (money to go to buyer or seller, depending on which way the error goes)?
Interior dimensions (hell, include interior walls if you want) of space enclosed by solid walls (i.e. no screened porches) and with finished floors and walls (to include finished basements), and climate controlled (exclude Finished Room Over Garage unless it has power and air/heat) to used for human occupancy or use (no garages or storage attics) all within the primary structure (no outbuildings).
I’ll bet it’s because the only use for the square footage info is for potential buyers to narrow down their searches…and neither the buyer nor the agents have any interest in helping them do that.
Really. If I put in my ad that my house is, uh, 2000 square feet (or whatever a normal number might be) all I’ll do is disuade the buyers who are thinking “No more than 1500 feet” and “Got to be at least 2200 feet” from looking at my place. Whereas if I burble (tersely) about my grt vw and hrdwd flrs and btlr pntry these same people might see my house, fall in love with it despite it being smaller/larger than they thought they wanted, and bid on it.