Independent highest and best use studies that determine the most productive, legally permissible and financially feasible use of a property — supported by market evidence, development-cost modeling and residual land value analysis.
A highest and best use study answers a question that comes before every development decision: not whether a proposed project works, but which use this parcel should carry at all. Wert-Berater has prepared independent feasibility and valuation-support studies since 1998 for lenders, CDCs, federal agencies, developers, municipalities and institutional owners throughout the United States. Fiduciary duty runs to the party relying on the study — the lender, agency or board — never to a predetermined outcome.
Nationwide assignments · Fixed-fee, non-contingent scope · Independent determinations
A highest and best use analysis compares reasonable alternatives in a fixed order. It does not begin by making the owner’s preferred concept work. The land feasibility study consultant first defines candidate programs at a scale the site and market might support, then applies the four tests — legally permissible, physically possible, financially feasible and maximally productive — sequentially. The decision set may include multifamily, retail, industrial, hotel, self storage, a residential subdivision and mixed use, as well as continued interim use. Each rejected program remains in the screening record with the reason it failed.
Alternative-use analysis gives each property type an appropriate evidence set. Multifamily is tested with unit mix, effective rents, concessions and apartment absorption; retail with trade-area spending, traffic, tenant demand and competing nodes; industrial with rent, vacancy, clear-height and logistics requirements; and hotel with room demand, competitive supply and operating performance. A self storage development feasibility study measures drive-time demand, unit mix, competing rentable area, rates and lease-up. Residential subdivision analysis follows lot or home sale pace and infrastructure phasing, while mixed use combines the components without assuming one use can subsidise another indefinitely.
The conclusion also addresses the action available to the owner: hold, sell or develop. Holding may be indicated when the long-term use is supportable but demand, infrastructure or entitlement timing makes immediate development premature. Selling may be preferable where another market participant can execute the concluded use more efficiently or where the supported land residual exceeds the owner’s risk-adjusted development return. Developing may be indicated where the preferred program clears all four tests and its return remains supportable under sensitivity testing. If the decision requires a formal opinion of market value rather than a consulting conclusion about use, a separate commercial real estate appraisal is scoped under applicable appraisal standards.
A highest and best use study consultant determines which reasonably probable use of a property is best supported by evidence. Candidate uses are tested against four criteria — legally permissible, physically possible, financially feasible, and maximally productive — and the use producing the greatest supported residual land value is concluded. The consultant does not assume the owner’s preferred project is correct. Alternatives are screened, survivors are modeled in full, and the reasoning is documented so a lender, agency, board or court can audit it rather than take it on trust.
That distinction matters because the cost of the question being answered badly is asymmetric. A development program can be refined after it begins; a use decision usually cannot. Once a site is graded, entitled and vertically built for one use, the capital committed to that decision is largely irreversible. The purpose of the study is to put the evidence in front of the decision before it hardens.
The four tests are applied in sequence, and the sequence is not arbitrary. A use that is prohibited or physically impossible cannot be rescued by an attractive pro forma, so screening precedes modeling — both because it is analytically correct and because modeling every conceivable use would add cost without adding information.
What zoning, the future land-use plan, overlay districts, deed restrictions, easements and environmental regulation actually allow — including the realistic path and probability of a variance or rezoning, rather than an assumption that approvals follow.
What the site can carry: dimensions and geometry, topography and soils, access and frontage, utility capacity, floodplain and wetlands, and the buildable envelope that remains after setbacks and parking.
Which surviving uses generate a return sufficient to justify development, tested with development-cost models, market-derived revenue, absorption assumptions and discounted cash flow rather than rules of thumb.
Of the financially feasible uses, which produces the greatest supported residual land value — the single conclusion the study exists to reach, stated with the margin over the runner-up scenario.
A use must pass all four. Failing any one eliminates it, and the study records which test eliminated each rejected use so the screening can be reviewed rather than assumed.
Every highest and best use analysis is performed from one or both of two premises, and confusing them is the most common analytical error in this work.
As vacant asks what would be developed on the site if it were vacant and available for development today, disregarding existing improvements. It establishes the economic potential of the land itself. As improved asks what should happen to the property as it currently stands — retain as is, renovate, convert, expand, or demolish and redevelop. Existing improvements contribute value only where the as-improved conclusion produces more value than the site would produce as vacant, net of demolition and site-preparation cost. Where it does not, the improvements are functionally a liability against the land, and the study says so plainly.
Three related concepts fall out of that comparison and are addressed explicitly where they apply:
Adaptive reuse and conversion analysis sits inside the as-improved premise: whether an existing building’s floor plates, structure, systems, parking ratio and location support a different use at a cost that the converted asset’s value can carry.
Candidate uses are screened, not assumed, and not drawn from a standard list. The starting set comes from what the jurisdiction permits and what the site can physically accommodate; it is then narrowed by what the local market could actually absorb. Four filters do most of the work:
Uses that clearly fail one of those filters are eliminated before detailed financial modeling, with the reason recorded. Uses that survive are carried forward as defined development programs — size, mix, phasing and timing — because a candidate use cannot be modeled until it has been specified.
Legal permissibility is established from the jurisdiction’s own primary source documents rather than from third-party summaries or aggregator data, because zoning text, overlays and conditions of approval are where the constraints that decide a use actually live. The review covers current zoning classification and the future land-use designation; permitted, conditional and prohibited uses; density, floor-area ratio, height, setback, lot-coverage and parking standards; overlay districts and special districts; and any historic designation, deed restriction, easement or environmental restriction of record.
| Regulatory factor | What is established | Effect on candidate uses |
|---|---|---|
| Zoning classification | Permitted, conditional and prohibited uses in the district | Eliminates uses outright or routes them to a conditional-use path |
| Future land-use designation | The jurisdiction’s planned long-term use for the area | Indicates whether a rezoning is consistent with adopted policy |
| Density, FAR and height | The maximum buildable program | Caps the scale, and therefore the revenue, of each candidate |
| Setbacks, coverage and parking | The buildable envelope after required yards and parking | Can make an otherwise permitted use physically unworkable |
| Overlay and special districts | Additional design, use or procedural requirements | Adds cost, time and approval risk |
| Deed restrictions and easements | Private limitations of record running with the land | Can prohibit a use that zoning would otherwise allow |
| Environmental and historic constraints | Wetlands, floodplain, contamination, designation status | Restricts the developable area or the scope of alteration |
| Variance or rezoning path | Realistic probability, cost and timeline of approval | Modeled as risk and carrying cost, never assumed to succeed |
The physical screen establishes what the site can actually carry, independent of what is permitted. Site size, shape and usable area determine which development programs fit at all; topography, slope and soil-bearing conditions determine what grading, retention and foundation work each program would require. Access, frontage, corner position, traffic counts and visibility matter differently to each use — decisive for retail or hospitality, secondary for industrial or storage.
Utility availability and capacity are treated as a screen rather than a line item, because a power-, water- or wastewater-intensive use is not physically possible where the serving utility cannot deliver the load, regardless of how the pro forma reads. Floodplain designation, wetlands, drainage and detention requirements, environmental conditions disclosed in existing reports, and infrastructure that would have to be extended to the site are all carried into the development-cost model for each surviving use rather than noted and set aside.
Demand analysis for a highest and best use study cannot start from a single proposed use. A separate demand framework is built for each candidate that survives the legal and physical screens, drawing on the category of evidence that use is actually judged by — which is why the analysis for an industrial candidate looks nothing like the analysis for a multifamily or hospitality candidate on the same parcel.
For commercial and industrial candidates, recorded deed transfers and assessor parcel data establish comparable land transactions, while county and municipal planning documents, approved subdivision plats and building-permit activity measure supply already in the pipeline. Traffic-count data from state and municipal transportation departments establishes the access quality retail and hospitality uses require. For residential and mixed-use candidates, absorption is derived from recorded lot sales, certificate-of-occupancy issuance rates and active listing inventory in the defined market area rather than from regional projections. For agricultural and agribusiness candidates, commodity price series, USDA crop-reporting district data and processing-capacity registries inform the revenue side.
In every case the competitive-supply count distinguishes entitled but unbuilt supply, which can reach the market quickly, from raw land still carrying entitlement risk and a longer path to delivery. Treating those as equivalent is a common way for an absorption assumption to be quietly wrong.
Property types regularly analyzed include multifamily and senior housing, retail and shopping centers, office and medical office, industrial, warehouse and logistics, hotel, resort and outdoor hospitality, healthcare and assisted living, self-storage and RV and boat storage, car washes and automotive uses, convenience and fuel retail, mixed-use redevelopment, and agricultural and agri-industrial uses.
Each surviving candidate is carried into a full financial model on conventions held constant across scenarios, because the comparison between uses is only meaningful if the uses are modeled the same way. That means a common effective date, a common discount-rate methodology, consistent treatment of contingency and profit, and the same absorption logic applied to each candidate’s own market evidence.
Development cost is built from RSMeans location-adjusted hard costs, soft costs, financing carry and entitlement fees, cross-checked against recent bids or cost certifications in the market where available. Revenue is built from executed comparable leases and arm’s-length sales of stabilized assets in the same use category and submarket. Operating expense, vacancy and reserves are set from the same evidence base. Each scenario is then run through a ten-year discounted cash flow with an explicit absorption and lease-up schedule.
Sensitivity testing is applied at ±5, 10 and 15 percent, with interest-rate stress from +0.5 to +3.0 percent, and ratio analysis benchmarked against RMA and IBISWorld data. The purpose of the sensitivity work is not decoration: it establishes whether the ranking between scenarios is robust or whether it flips under a movement well within the plausible range. A conclusion that survives only at the base case is reported as a fragile conclusion, not a confident one.
Residual land value is the common denominator that allows genuinely different uses to be compared on one economic basis. An apartment program and a car wash cannot be compared on revenue, yield or square footage — but they can be compared on what each can afford to pay for the land.
Conceptual illustration. The relationship above is shown to explain the logic, not to describe the calculation performed. Assignments use a detailed multi-year discounted cash flow with scenario-specific absorption, phasing, financing and stress testing; a single-line residual is not a substitute for that model and is not used to reach a conclusion.
Each scenario is reduced to a residual land value, expressed per acre or per square foot as well as in total, and the scenarios are ranked. The study states the margin between the leading scenario and the runner-up, because a conclusion that leads by a wide margin and a conclusion that leads by two percent carry very different weight for a decision-maker. Where the evidence does not separate two scenarios cleanly, the study says so and identifies what additional information would resolve it.
For sites that are entitled, partially entitled, or where entitlement is the decision under consideration, the analysis quantifies the entitlement itself — the spread between raw land value and approved-use value. That spread is what an entitlement process is expected to create, and it is testable rather than assumed.
The work covers the value of the parcel in its current entitlement state; the value under the target entitlement; the cost, timeline and probability of achieving it; and the risk-adjusted spread that remains once those are accounted for. For phased or lot-sale programs, the takedown schedule is stress-tested directly, because absorption assumptions buried in a takedown schedule are one of the most reliable places for an optimistic projection to hide. Where the entitlement spread does not survive the cost, delay and approval risk required to capture it, that is a finding, and it is reported as one.
These are related but distinct assignments, and using one where the other is required is a costly mistake. Highest and best use is a component within an appraisal, but a highest and best use consulting study is not itself an appraisal and does not deliver an opinion of market value.
| Highest and best use study | Project feasibility study | Appraisal | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core question | Which use should this property carry? | Does this specific project work? | What is this property worth? |
| Use of property | An open question to be determined | Already decided before the work starts | Concluded as an input to value |
| Primary output | A ranked, supported use conclusion | A viability determination for one program | An opinion of market value |
| Alternatives tested | Multiple candidate uses modeled and ranked | Ordinarily one program, with sensitivities | Considered to support the value conclusion |
| Typical timing | Before the use is chosen | After the use is chosen, before financing | At financing, transaction or reporting |
| Who signs it | The consulting analyst | The consulting analyst | A licensed or designated appraiser |
The difference is the status of the use. A highest and best use study treats the use as the open variable and concludes which one the property should carry. A project feasibility study treats the use as settled and tests whether that specific program works — its market, its costs, its financing and its coverage ratios.
They are sequential rather than competing. On an unresolved site the correct order is a highest and best use study first to establish the use, then an asset-specific feasibility study on the selected program to support financing. Commissioning a feasibility study on a use that was never tested against alternatives produces a confident answer to a question nobody validated. For a fuller treatment see Highest and Best Use vs. Feasibility Study: Which Does Your Deal Need? and What a Highest and Best Use Study Does.
| Who | The decision in front of them | What the study gives them |
|---|---|---|
| Property owners | Whether to hold, reposition, redevelop or sell | An evidence-based use conclusion and residual value by scenario |
| Developers | Which program to entitle and build on a site | Ranked scenarios with cost, absorption and return modeled |
| Lenders and CDCs | Whether the use securing the loan is the supportable one | Independent screening of alternatives and a documented conclusion |
| Government agencies | Whether a project fits the program’s purpose and the community pattern | A determination reached without advocacy for any party |
| Municipalities and public bodies | What to do with surplus or underused public parcels | A defensible public record of how the use was selected |
| Attorneys | Valuation-adjacent disputes, condemnation, partition, estates | Documented analysis whose reasoning can be examined line by line |
| Institutional investors | Underwriting a land or repositioning basis | Residual value under the indicated use and a fallback use |
What those users have in common is that they need a determination that was not written to a desired answer. That is the operative feature of the engagement: the fee is fixed and non-contingent, so no part of the firm’s compensation depends on which use is concluded, whether the project is found feasible, or whether a loan closes.
Where a highest and best use determination supports a financing request, the study is prepared to the standard the relying party underwrites to.
For SBA 504 and 7(a) transactions, engagements are prepared to SBA SOP 50 10 8. Where a study is required — that determination rests with the lender or CDC and the program requirements applicable to the specific transaction — the central question is whether the use on which repayment depends is in fact supportable for the parcel, rather than simply modeled because the borrower proposed it. SBA lenders commonly underwrite to debt-service-coverage minimums of 1.15x on an operating basis and 1.00x on a global basis; where those thresholds apply to a transaction, the study models coverage under the concluded use rather than under a best case.
For USDA Rural Development engagements, work is prepared to RD Staff Instruction 5001. Whether a feasibility study is required, and what it must address, is program-specific and rests with the Agency and the requirements applicable to the particular application — it is not a blanket requirement across the Business & Industry, Community Facilities, REAP and Value-Added Producer Grant programs. Where a study is required, the indicated use is also assessed for consistency with the community’s development pattern and the program’s economic-development purpose.
Conventional acquisition and development lenders focus on three land-specific risks, and the study addresses each directly: entitlement risk, the probability that approvals arrive on the assumed timeline and at the assumed cost; absorption risk, the pace at which finished lots or pads are taken down; and residual-value risk, the floor value of the land if the project does not proceed. Residual value is therefore concluded under both the indicated use and a fallback use. Conventional engagements are built to the lender’s stated coverage standard, commonly 1.20x.
Studies are documented so that a lender, agency or third-party reviewer can trace each conclusion to the evidence behind it. Independence is not a marketing position: determinations follow the evidence and are not revised under pressure from any party, including the party paying the fee.
Conclusions are built from primary sources tied to the subject jurisdiction, not from national averages applied to a local parcel. The evidence base ordinarily includes municipal and county zoning ordinances and adopted comprehensive plans; assessor parcel records and recorded deed transfers; building-permit activity and approved subdivision plats; state and municipal traffic counts; U.S. Census and Bureau of Labor Statistics population and employment data; utility interconnection and will-serve information from the serving providers; executed lease comparables and arm’s-length sale comparables in the relevant submarket; RSMeans location-adjusted construction cost data; and RMA and IBISWorld operating benchmarks. Where a needed input does not exist or could not be obtained, the study states that and explains how the gap was handled — an absent data point is disclosed, never silently filled.
Selected published engagements. Party names are withheld consistent with the confidential nature of underwriting and capital-advisory work, and figures represent each project as evaluated at its study date.
Repositioning analysis of a vacant 17-story, 184,960 SF tower. Concluded a market-rate apartment program with moderate retail and a destination restaurant; continuation as Class A office produced a negative project IRR.
$95,000,000 evaluated · Completed 2025
Four candidate development programs tested sequentially for legal permissibility, physical possibility, financial feasibility and maximal productivity to identify the concluded scenario.
$45,018,730 evaluated · Completed 2026
A branded express tunnel car wash with a national drive-through ground-lease pad was concluded as the maximally productive use, producing the highest land residual of the uses tested.
$9,300,000 evaluated · Completed 2026
Three downtown parcels analyzed with a use conclusion reached per parcel: two Main Street parcels forming a coordinated component, the N 2nd East parcel carrying an independent conclusion, with the public alley treated as a hard boundary rather than an assumed assemblage.
$285,000 evaluated · Completed 2026
Highest and best use analysis of commercial land, concluding an indicated use and supported residual land value for the parcel.
Completed 2025
Highest and best use study of a two-parcel commercial assemblage in Lake County, testing mixed-use commercial redevelopment scenarios.
Retained to determine the highest and best use of an existing office property and to test repurposing and repositioning alternatives against current market conditions. No findings are reported while work is in progress.
Retained to analyze market demand and competitive supply and to determine the highest and best use of the subject land for a proposed RV and boat storage development.
All published engagement announcements →
Wert-Berater performs highest and best use studies throughout the United States. Every assignment is built from the zoning ordinance, comprehensive plan, assessor records, transaction evidence and market data specific to the subject property and its jurisdiction — there is no national template, because a use conclusion that ignores the local regulatory and market context is not a conclusion at all.
Published highest and best use engagements to date include assignments in the following states:
The firm’s broader feasibility practice spans a considerably wider footprint; the list above is limited to published highest and best use engagements specifically. Assignments are accepted nationally, and the absence of a state from that list reflects what has been published rather than where the firm works.
Related market coverage: feasibility study consultants by market.
Residual land value is a derived number: it equals the supportable value of the completed project minus total development cost, including profit. Small movements in the inputs on either side of that equation produce large swings in the residual, which is why a highest and best use conclusion is only as defensible as the assumptions behind it. Reviewers concentrate on the categories below because those contain the inputs with the widest plausible range.
Every input is a live cell in the linked model. A reviewer can change any single assumption and watch its effect propagate through residual value and coverage ratios without unlocking or rebuilding anything.
Highest and best use study fees are quoted on a fixed, non-contingent basis. No portion of the fee depends on a finding of feasibility, a particular concluded use, a loan approval, or any other outcome. That structure is not a formality — it is what allows a lender, agency, court, or board to treat the conclusion as independent rather than sponsored.
The fee is driven by the work the parcel actually requires, principally the following:
Because those variables differ so much between assignments, a fee schedule is not published. A project-specific written scope and fee are provided before any work begins, normally within one business day of receiving a project description, and the scope states plainly what is and is not included.
Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from the date a complete data room is received. Rush delivery is available and is quoted at intake. The delivery clock starts when the data room is genuinely complete, not when the engagement is signed — an incomplete data room is the single most common cause of delay, so gaps are identified at intake rather than discovered mid-engagement.
The items typically required to start are:
Nothing on that list is a precondition to a conversation. Where an item does not exist, the study says how its absence was handled rather than quietly assuming a value.
The sequence below is deliberate. Screening comes before modeling because a use that is illegal or physically impossible cannot be rescued by an attractive pro forma, and modeling every conceivable use would add cost without adding information.
Where the evidence does not separate two scenarios cleanly, the study says so and identifies what additional information would resolve it. A forced conclusion is worth less than an honest one.
A highest and best use engagement delivers a narrative report and a fully linked financial model. The report documents not only the concluded use but every candidate that was screened and the precise criterion on which each was eliminated, so a reviewer can audit the reasoning rather than accept the conclusion. Components include:
An explicit statement of conditions accompanies every engagement, identifying the information relied upon and the assumptions that would, if materially changed, alter the conclusion.
A highest and best use study consultant determines which reasonably probable use of a property is best supported by evidence. Candidate uses are tested for legal permissibility, physical possibility, financial feasibility, and maximal productivity. The consultant does not assume the owner’s preferred project is correct: alternatives are screened, the survivors are modeled, and the use producing the greatest supported residual land value is concluded.
Legally permissible, physically possible, financially feasible, and maximally productive. They are applied in that order because a use that is prohibited or physically impossible cannot be rescued by an attractive pro forma. Only uses clearing the first two screens are carried into financial modeling, and only those that are financially feasible are ranked to identify the maximally productive one.
It asks what would be developed on the site if it were vacant and available for development today, ignoring any existing improvements. It establishes the economic potential of the land itself, which is the reference point for judging whether existing improvements add value or subtract from it.
It asks what should happen to the property as it currently stands: retain it as is, renovate, convert to another use, expand, or demolish and redevelop. The existing improvements contribute value only where the as-improved conclusion produces more value than the site would produce as vacant, net of demolition.
An interim use is a temporary use that is the best available today when the long-term highest and best use is not yet achievable — because entitlements, infrastructure, or market demand are not in place. Surface parking or outdoor storage on a site awaiting redevelopment is a common example. The interim use must not foreclose the eventual use or add cost to it.
Excess land is land not needed to support the existing or concluded use that can be separately developed or sold. Because it has an independent highest and best use, it is valued separately rather than absorbed into the value of the primary parcel.
Surplus land is land not needed to support the existing or concluded use but which cannot be separately developed or sold — for example, because it lacks independent access or frontage, or cannot meet minimum lot standards. Unlike excess land, it has no independent highest and best use and typically contributes only marginal value.
Candidate uses are screened, not assumed. Zoning and the future land-use plan establish what is permitted; site dimensions, access, utilities, and infrastructure establish what can physically be built; and population, employment, traffic, current and planned supply, capital requirements, and the entitlement path establish what the market could absorb. Uses that clearly fail one of those screens are eliminated before detailed financial modeling begins.
Conceptually, residual land value equals the supportable value of the completed development, less total development costs, less the entrepreneurial profit or return a market participant would require. What remains is what the land can support under that use. It is the common denominator that lets very different property types be compared on one economic basis. Actual assignments use a more detailed discounted cash flow and scenario model than the conceptual formula suggests.
Current zoning, the future land-use designation, by-right and conditional uses, density, floor-area ratio, height, setbacks, parking requirements, overlay districts, and any historic, deed, easement or environmental restriction are reviewed against the primary source documents for the jurisdiction. The realistic path to a variance or rezoning is assessed as a probability and a timeline, not treated as automatic. Legal conclusions requiring counsel remain subject to confirmation by qualified local legal counsel.
A highest and best use study asks which use should be pursued; the property use is an open question. A project feasibility study asks whether one specific proposed project works; the use is already decided. The two are sequential rather than competing — a highest and best use study is often performed upstream to identify the preferred use, and an asset-specific feasibility study then tests the selected development program in detail.
A highest and best use consulting study identifies and ranks alternative uses; its product is a supported conclusion about use, together with the market and financial evidence behind it. An appraisal develops an opinion of market value, is signed by a designated appraiser, and is performed under appraisal standards. Highest and best use is one component of an appraisal, but a consulting study is not itself an appraisal and does not deliver a market value opinion.
No. A highest and best use consulting study does not provide an opinion of market value and is not an appraisal. Where an opinion of value is required, that is a separate appraisal assignment. At Wert-Berater, appraisal assignments are performed by Bruce E. Jones, MAI, ASA-GC, BCA, CMEA, who holds Certified General licenses in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia. Analysts who prepare feasibility and consulting studies do not hold those designations and do not sign appraisal reports.
Fees are fixed and non-contingent, quoted per engagement rather than published as a schedule, because scope varies with parcel complexity, the number of credible candidate uses, zoning and entitlement issues, market-research requirements, and financial-modeling scope. A project-specific written scope and fee are provided before work begins, normally within one business day of receiving a project description.
Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from receipt of a complete data room, with rush delivery available and quoted at intake. The clock starts when the data room is complete, so missing items — commonly the survey, written zoning confirmation, or utility availability information — are identified at intake rather than mid-engagement.
Yes. Wert-Berater performs highest and best use studies throughout the United States, with each assignment built from the zoning, planning, site, transaction, market and development evidence specific to the subject property and its local jurisdiction rather than from a national template. Recent published engagements include assignments in California, North Carolina, Florida, Idaho, Illinois and Texas.
Typically a current survey and legal description, ownership or purchase documentation, written zoning confirmation, entitlement records, any existing environmental reports, site plans or development concepts, utility availability information, existing building information for improved property, and any cost information already developed. Missing items are identified at intake, and where an item does not exist the study states how its absence was handled.
No. The study screens all legally permissible and physically possible candidate uses and concludes whichever use is best supported by the evidence. If the proposed use is not the indicated use, the study says so. Determinations follow the evidence and are not revised under pressure from any party — which is precisely what makes the conclusion useful to a lender, agency or board.
Qualify a project. Tell us about the project and the program. We will tell you the truth about it — scope, timeline, and fee confirmed before work begins.
Schedule a Zoom Call →Legal disclosure. Wert-Berater, Inc. offices are mailing addresses only. Following the COVID-19 pandemic the firm has elected to work remotely; its office locations receive mail and are not staffed for visitors or in-person meetings. Headquarters mailing address: 1968 South Coast Hwy, Ste 2382, Laguna Beach, CA 92651.
Wert-Berater, Inc. is an independent provider of feasibility studies and other related services. The firm does not provide financing or equity investment advice, and does not arrange, broker, or place debt or equity capital of any kind.
All appraisal assignments are performed by Bruce E. Jones, MAI, ASA-GC, BCA, CMEA, a member of the Appraisal Institute since 2006, a staff member of Wert-Berater, Inc. and owner of Special Purpose Realty Valuation.