Property Information Report.

The simulated property card and owner sketch provide a starting point, with one important discrepancy.

Property identity

Fictional Parcel F-01, called Juniper House. A single-family residential property; no real address, parcel number or reviewing jurisdiction is assigned.

Lot information

The sample property card lists a 60-by-120-foot rectangular lot: 7,200 square feet. This is record information in the scenario, not a surveyed boundary.

Existing house

The simulated record lists 1,280 square feet. The owner sketch suggests about 1,340 square feet, a 60-square-foot difference to reconcile.

Owner priorities

Retain two existing front parking spaces and useful garden space. The rear yard is sketched as about 60 by 45 feet, with a roughly 6-foot side path.

These are invented source excerpts that show how a real report would connect findings to evidence. They are not real agency records.

S-01 / Property card

Simulated entry: single-family use; 7,200-square-foot lot; 1,280-square-foot house. Supplies recorded characteristics, not current field conditions.

S-02 / Planning layer

Simulated map describes a residential context. Exact zoning district, overlays and applicable development standards remain unconfirmed.

S-03 / Permit index

Invented sample entries show an original-house record and a later patio reference. No underlying plans or final-inspection documents are included.

S-04 / Owner sketch

Invented sketch shows the house, front parking, rear garden and side path. Dimensions are estimates; it is neither a measured plan nor a survey.

S-05 / Owner questionnaire

Fictional owner describes a detached ADU goal, two parking spaces to retain and a preference for one-story construction.

Missing sources

No boundary survey, title documents, utility confirmation, measured base plan or written agency direction was supplied.

Two findings deserve follow-up before the property information is used as a drawing base.

Finding 1 / House area differs

S-01 lists 1,280 square feet; S-04 suggests 1,340. The difference is 60 square feet, about 4.7% of the recorded area. Measurement methods, record age or a physical change could explain it.

Why it matters

Using the wrong existing-house base could affect later drawings. Compare a measured plan with available building records rather than assuming either source is correct.

Finding 2 / Patio history is incomplete

S-03 includes a patio reference, but the source packet has no underlying drawing or final-inspection record. The index alone does not establish the patio footprint or current status.

What to check next

Request the relevant building and patio records, then compare them with the measured existing condition. Missing online detail is not proof that no record exists.

The owner sketch describes a rear area and side route worth documenting. Neither is verified available building area.

What the sketch suggests

A roughly 60-by-45-foot rear area and a 6-foot side route. These are scenario inputs, not confirmed legal clearances or access compliance.

What the map does not establish

Legal boundaries, easements, exact building locations, grading, drainage, utility routes and project-specific planning requirements still need the appropriate evidence.

Prioritize evidence that could change the next project decision.

1 / Records request

Retrieve the underlying house and patio records referenced by S-03. Note what is received, what remains unavailable and any conflict with current conditions.

2 / Existing conditions

Obtain measured house, yard, parking and side-route information. Resolve property lines through appropriate survey or title work when needed.

3 / Project-specific review

Use the reconciled information for a separately scoped ADU Feasibility Study. Utility, planning and consultant questions should be stated explicitly.

What this product is not

This is not a survey, title report, site inspection, design, engineering or utility review, legal opinion, agency determination or permit approval prediction.