USPAP appraisal review checklist (Standards 3 and 4)

USPAP, the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice promulgated by The Appraisal Foundation, is the regulatory framework every US appraiser must follow. Standards 1 and 2 govern the development and reporting of real property appraisals. Standards 3 and 4 apply when an appraiser reviews another appraiser's work: Standard 3 covers developing the review and Standard 4 covers reporting it. This guide summarizes those obligations (2024 edition of USPAP) and turns them into a practical checklist a review desk can actually run.

What Standards 3 and 4 ask of a reviewer

An appraisal review is its own assignment with its own client, and the reviewer develops an independent, supported opinion about the quality of the work under review. Standard 3 (development) has three rules:

• SR 3-1, General Development Requirements: understand and correctly employ the methods and techniques needed for a credible review, and do not commit a substantial error or render the review in a careless or negligent manner.
• SR 3-2, Problem Identification: identify the client and other intended users, the intended use, and the purpose of the review (including whether it includes the reviewer's own opinion of value), identify the work under review (its date, effective date, the appraiser who produced it, and the property), identify any extraordinary assumptions or hypothetical conditions, and determine the scope of work.
• SR 3-3, Appraisal Review Methods: develop an opinion as to whether the analyses are appropriate and the opinions and conclusions are credible within the context of the requirements that apply to the work, and develop the reasons for any disagreement.

Standard 4 (reporting) then sets what the written review must contain: SR 4-1 covers general reporting requirements, SR 4-2 the content of an appraisal review report, and SR 4-3 the reviewer's signed certification.

The commentary to SR 3-3 names five quality dimensions for the analysis and the report: completeness, accuracy, adequacy, relevance, and reasonableness. They are the backbone of the checklist below. One more distinction matters before starting: if the reviewer states their own opinion of value rather than only evaluating the appraiser's, that value opinion is itself appraisal development and must meet the appraisal development standard too.

The checklist

1. Set up the review assignment

• Identify the client and intended users of the review itself.
• State the intended use and whether the review includes your own opinion of value.
• Confirm the review's client and intended users separately from the appraisal's. The bank ordering the review is the review's client; the appraisal under review has its own, often different, client and intended users.
• Document the scope of the review and any assignment conditions.

2. Identify the work under review

• Appraiser's name, credential, and signature present.
• Report date and effective date of value identified and consistent.
• Property, property rights appraised, and intended use of the appraisal stated.

3. Completeness

• All applicable approaches to value are developed, or their exclusion is explained.
• USPAP-required certifications and disclosures are present.
• Extraordinary assumptions and hypothetical conditions are disclosed and their effect on value is stated.
• Engagement requirements (scope, deliverables, client conditions) are met.

4. Accuracy

• The math holds: adjustment grids foot, income and expense figures reconcile to the capitalization or discounting applied, and per-unit values agree with totals.
• Figures are consistent across the report: the same square footage, dates, and values wherever they repeat.
• Data is verifiable: sales, rents, and costs trace to identifiable sources.

5. Adequacy and relevance

• Comparable selection is relevant to the subject and the market.
• The methodology fits the property type and the appraisal problem.
• Market analysis actually supports the conclusions drawn from it.

6. Reasonableness

• The reconciliation follows from the analyses rather than overriding them.
• The value conclusion is supported by the evidence in the report.
• Conclusions the report withholds support for are flagged, not assumed correct.

7. Compliance and language

• The work under review complies with USPAP and applicable assignment conditions.
• The report contains no language that may violate the Fair Housing Act, such as references to neighborhood demographics or steering language.

8. The reviewer's own obligations

• Your competency for the property type and market is established or disclosed.
• Your review conclusions are supported with evidence you can point to.
• Your review report carries the content SR 4-2 requires, your certification (SR 4-3) is signed, and your workfile supports the review.

Running the checklist at scale

Most of the checklist is judgment, but a large share of it is verifiable mechanical work: footing grids, tracing repeated figures, confirming required disclosures exist. That is the part Appraisal-AI automates. The platform reads the full report, drafts page-cited findings against USPAP Standards 1 and 2, re-verifies figures, dates, and rents with deterministic cross-checks against the extracted financial tables, and screens for Fair Housing Act bias language. A human reviewer approves every finding before delivery, so the reviewer spends their time on the judgment calls, with the evidence (page, table, exact phrasing) already assembled.

Reviewing residential reports under the new GSE format? See UAD 3.6: what changes and when. Delivering commercial data to banks? See What is BRAVE?