Low standard land value: potential problem in property valuation?

Hm. Do you then advise against an appraisal by Sprengnetter?

The insurance company requested Sprengnetter on their own initiative. The value is more to be understood as a guideline, but the insurance companies use it as a hard criterion due to lack of local knowledge. You can't really blame them for that.

If your property resembles those in the surrounding area, these values from Sprengnetter, ImmoScout, standard land value, etc. are more meaningful than if your property has special features (for example, a single property by the lake with an airstrip).

The bank used the value from the notarized purchase contract of the property as the value and equity. Not a cent more and not a cent less

So, now I also have the bank's assessment. Accordingly, the value is at the "upper end" but not completely unrealistic. But now comes the big catch. The property is over 900 sqm in size and according to the bank, only a max of 700 sqm is recognized as building land, the rest is classified as "garden land." They would value the building land at about 75% of the purchase price and the rest, and this really blew me away, at 15% (!!) which is even below the apparently completely unrealistic standard land value. Applied to our financing, this would mean that only just under 60% of the amount we would pay for the property would actually be considered as equity in the financing. Is that a usual value?

Is it garden land or building land?
That is not decided by the bank...

Well, it will be a fully developed large building plot. The bank's argument was that you would anyway only use a maximum of 700 sqm as building land for single-family homes and the rest would simply be valued as garden land. I can only partially understand that, at least regarding the absurdly low valuation of this remaining area, because I would at least expect the standard land value.

That sounds like nonsense. The "regulations" for determining the lending values vary from bank to bank, sometimes even from caseworker to caseworker within the same bank. I would not settle for such a general explanation and would actually obtain comparison offers. Ultimately, however, the amount of the lending value often only plays a role in determining the conditions. The primary lending portion (60% of the lending value) is considered particularly secure and is therefore cheaper than the subordinate portion would be. Usually today, you get a loan with a mixed interest rate that includes both components. Here, comparison and negotiation are worthwhile again. You can also negotiate the amount of the lending value (equipped with good arguments).

The land value map, however, only shows past values. And that only in the statistical average. Very inexpensive – practically undesired locations – (actual price below the land value) and very desirable locations (price often significantly above the land value) are not specifically taken into account by the reference value but are averaged out.

Due to private autonomy, anyone can basically conclude any deal with anyone. This also includes deals that burden one party (up to the limit of immorality). In this case, that might be a price per square meter that deviates strongly from the usual prices. In fact, this price does not seem to be completely out of line.

At the end of all these explanations, it remains (as always) to be noted that you have to consider whether the demanded price suits you in view of the property (buy) or not (negotiate or not buy). Basically, we also paid "too much" for our property (1600 sqm). I only glanced at the reference value. Here, very personal reasons were decisive for the purchase: location, rural property, otherwise hardly available plot size, unobstructable view and also the very nice neighborhood.