In a highest and best use analysis, which conclusion is NOT necessarily required in the appraiser's narrative?

In a highest and best use analysis, the conclusion that is NOT necessarily required in the appraiser's narrative relates to where the selected use is likely to occur. While an appraiser evaluates a property's highest and best use based on four key criteria—physical possibility, legal permissibility, economic feasibility, and maximum productivity—specifying the exact location of the selected use is not always a necessary component.

The other aspects provide a comprehensive framework for understanding the viability of a property use. Determining what use is physically possible, legally permitted, economically feasible, and maximally productive helps in identifying the most appropriate use for the property. Additionally, stating when the selected use could occur gives insight into market timing and economic cycles which can affect demand and development.

Identifying who the most probable buyer might be for that use grounds the analysis in market realities, providing context for the demand side of the valuation equation. However, pinpointing the exact location where the selected use is likely to occur isn't a mandatory requirement for the analysis. The emphasis is more on the overall viability and potential impact of that use, rather than the specific geographic implementation. This focus allows for a broader interpretation of how the property could be utilized, providing flexibility in understanding the highest and best use in various contexts