ADU Feasibility Study.

Fictional Parcel F-01 is the same property used in the Property Information Report.

Homeowner goal

Explore a detached, one-story ADU of about 700 square feet. Retain two front parking spaces and enough rear garden for daily use.

Starting information

A simulated 7,200-square-foot lot, recorded 1,280-square-foot house, owner-sketched rear area of 60 by 45 feet, and approximately 6-foot side path.

Known conflict

The owner sketch suggests a 1,340-square-foot house. Resolve the 60-square-foot difference and the incomplete patio history before treating the base as reliable.

Decision to make

Is there enough promise to justify a measured test layout, or should the owner revise the idea or pause for a controlling answer first?

A 28-by-25-foot rectangle illustrates the target area. It is not a floor plan or a placement that has passed a site review.

Illustrative arithmetic

28 ft × 25 ft = 700 sq ft. The sketched rear area is 60 ft × 45 ft = 2,700 sq ft. The target footprint is about 26% of that gross rectangle.

What this does not establish

The remaining area is not automatically usable. Setbacks, easements, existing improvements, access, utilities and other project conditions have not been resolved.

Every input in this worked example is fictional. No real agency lookup or site investigation has been performed.

S-01 to S-03 / Simulated records

Property characteristics, residential map context and an incomplete permit index. They identify questions; they do not settle zoning or existing-condition status.

S-04 / Owner sketch

Estimated rear area, side route, house and parking positions. Useful to frame questions, unsuitable as a verified drawing base.

S-05 / Owner priorities

Detached, one story, about 700 square feet, retain two parking spaces and garden. These are preferences that can be adjusted.

Not supplied

Measured site information, survey/title documents, utility confirmation, applicable planning standards, consultant conclusions or written agency direction.

The example has enough information to identify the next useful checks, but not enough to confirm a buildable design.

Spatial opportunity / Worth measuring

The gross rear area exceeds the target footprint. This supports a measured test layout as a possible next step; gross area alone does not prove a compliant location.

Existing base / Resolve first

The house-area mismatch and incomplete patio record could change the base plan. Obtain the records and measured conditions before fixing the ADU position.

Access / Unresolved

The sketch suggests a 6-foot side path. Width, obstructions, equipment movement and any required access conditions remain unchecked.

Utilities / Unresolved

No route or capacity is confirmed. Identify provider questions and responsible consultant input before assuming a connection can follow the sketched route.

These are questions to verify, not conditions presumed to exist.

Planning requirements

Confirm the jurisdiction, applicable zoning and ADU requirements for the actual project. No setback, height, coverage or parking exemption is asserted in this sample.

Boundaries and easements

A constraint along a rear or side edge could change placement. Obtain the appropriate evidence before using the sketch as a legal boundary.

Service route and capacity

A constrained connection route or service upgrade could affect scope and the owner’s decision. No utility allowance or cost is included.

Physical conditions

Grade, drainage, vegetation and the patio footprint may affect a test layout. Establish the relevant conditions rather than relying on the model illustration.

The preferred path depends on what the controlling checks establish.

A / Test the 700-square-foot goal

If the measured base and controlling requirements support it, proceed to a separately scoped test layout. Retain parking and garden priorities in the brief.

B / Test a smaller alternative

If usable space conflicts with the original goal, compare a 24-by-25-foot, 600-square-foot rectangle. This is an illustrative alternative, not a confirmed fit.

C / Pause for an answer

If a record, legal boundary, utility or agency question controls the project, resolve that item before further layout work.

For this fictional case, the next investment should establish a reliable base and resolve the priority questions.

Recommendation

Start with the house/patio records and measured existing conditions. Then confirm planning and utility questions that could change the concept.

Continue when

The source conflict is reconciled and there is enough verified information to locate a meaningful test layout. Document any remaining assumptions.

Revise when

Verified constraints make the 700-square-foot goal conflict with access, services, parking or garden priorities. Compare the smaller option deliberately.

Pause when

A controlling answer is unavailable or the owner cannot accept the resulting scope. No construction budget or permit outcome has been established.

A practical sequence for the fictional homeowner and project team.

1 / Homeowner and record source

Request the underlying house and patio records. Share relevant existing documents and confirm the two parking spaces and garden priorities.

2 / Appropriate measurement or survey provider

Prepare the measured existing base and resolve boundary information needed to locate the work reliably.

3 / Study follow-up

Discuss the findings in the included 30-minute remote walkthrough. One written clarification request is included within seven days of delivery; new research or design is separately scoped.

4 / Define the next service

After the priority checks, agree whether to commission a test layout or permit-document scope, revise the target, or pause.

Service limits

No field measurement, survey, title work, design drawings, engineering, energy calculations, utility investigation, cost estimate, application, agency negotiation, construction or guaranteed outcome is supplied.