[Assessed 218.4%] Detached house in Inage Ward, Chiba City, Chiba — 6 min from Sakusabe Sta.

We read Sakusabe on the fiscal 2026 roadside value map 01099. The listed address stops at the town name with no lot number, so we narrowed down the chome from the distances to nearby facilities given in the listing (drugstore 170 m, convenience store 300 m, supermarket 450 m). All of these sit towards Tendai, and none falls within 300 m of the centroid of Sakusabe 2-chome, so the property is in the northern part of Sakusabe 1-chome. The residential streets in 1-chome read 96D, 97D, 105D twice, 110D six times, 115D, 120D and 130D, and we took the mode of 110D (110,000 yen/sqm). We checked the sensitivity. Even taking 90D, the lowest value in 2-chome, gives 160.8%; the lowest band in 1-chome at 96D gives 171.5%; and 130D near the arterial gives 232.2%. The conclusion holds whether or not the chome estimate is right. The three-year series follows the same street on the same sheet: 99,000 yen in 2024, 105,000 in 2025 and 110,000 in 2026. The leasehold ratio symbol is D (60%) throughout the map.

We looked for the reason behind the low price. The land works out at 4.98 million yen over 88.95 sqm, about 56,000 yen/sqm, which is roughly 51% of the 110,000 yen/sqm roadside value. Four things are stated in the listing: sold as-is, boundaries not demarcated, renovation recommended, no parking space. The interior photos show a largely Japanese-style layout with tatami, sliding screens and sand-finish walls, a tiled bathroom with an old stainless tub, an old one-piece kitchen sink unit, and an unrenovated washroom and toilet. It has been left largely untouched, so a full renovation is the starting point.

The frontage field is blank: neither the direction, the width nor the classification of the road is given. Whether the site can be rebuilt on cannot be confirmed from the listing. The seller notes non-rebuildable status at the top of the remarks as a matter of practice (confirmed on its other listings), and this one carries no such note — but the absence of a note is not proof that rebuilding is permitted. The listing also states "no parking space", and the exterior photo is taken from 3 to 4 m away at a steep upward angle, both of which suggest a narrow frontage road.

We downloaded and inspected all nine photos. The gate opens more or less directly onto the road surface, with the difference between the ground inside and outside amounting only to the sill beneath it. Counting the block joints on the gate post confirmed 20 cm per course, cross-checked against the intercom plate (about 18 cm high), putting the retaining height at about 0.15 to 0.25 m. There are no steps, and the difference is under 1 m, so it is not an exclusion. The left side is a decorative brick wall with the ground level on both sides, and there are no slope faces or cut faces. Only the block wall on the right boundary has its base outside the frame, so the difference in ground level either side of it could not be verified directly.

We confirmed this is not a party-wall row house. There is a gap between it and the house to the left, with separate eaves, a separate downpipe and a different exterior finish. The close-up of the entrance also shows a gap of some tens of centimetres and a downpipe between this house and the one to the right. There is no sign of a flagpole plot either — the entrance approach starts immediately behind the gate. National elevation data shows the surrounding blocks on flat tableland at 19 to 21 m, with the valley floor 70 to 90 m away.

Wooden construction, built December 1981, 44 years old. That is 22 years past the 22-year statutory useful life, so the building's assessed value is counted as zero and the 196.5% ratio comes from the land alone. The building is a wooden two-storey 4DK with 102.67 sqm of floor area. Utilities are mains water, public sewerage and city gas, though the listing notes that the layout, fixtures and defects are recorded from what the previous owner reported and may differ from the current state.