[Assessed 94.9%] Two houses, 19 min from Shin-Tokorozawa Station, Tokorozawa, Saitama

The coordinates in the listing are the centroid of the district, and using them puts the site 1,537 m in a straight line from Shin-Tokorozawa Station — physically inconsistent with the stated 19-minute walk. We therefore solved for the position from three facility distances given in the listing (elementary school 450 m, junior high 600 m, station 19 minutes). Two candidates emerge, but one is 1,211 m from the station in a straight line (1,520 m by road conversion, matching the 19 minutes) while the other is 1,450 m and does not fit. Cross-checking against real shops on OpenStreetMap, the first is 259 m from the Lawson-Three F Tokorozawa Koyocho store (the listing says about 300 m, 4 minutes) and 910 m in a straight line from York Foods, or about 1.1 km by road (the listing says about 1.1 km, 15 minutes); the second is 1,264 m from York Foods, about 1.5 km by road, which does not fit. The site is at the south-eastern edge of Iwaoka-cho along the Tokorozawa-Iruma bypass, with an error of about ±80 m.

The roadside value map has no text layer, so we read it as an image. Calibrating against the school symbols for Nishitomi Elementary on sheet 34010 and Koyo Junior High on sheet 34022 gives 0.4885 m per pixel (130 dpi, scale 1:2500) against real distances of 218.3 m east-west and 696.4 m north-south; the predicted x of 1,014.9 px matched the measured 1,013 px to within 2 px (about 1 m). Reading and calibration were both completed within sheet 34010, with no extrapolation across sheet boundaries. The residential streets within 200 m of the site are 105D (east of the bypass), 110D (immediately north) and 115D (west of the bypass). The bypass itself at 140D and 155D is an arterial and is not used as the representative value. The site sits almost exactly on the boundary between the 105D block and the 115D block, and at ±80 m of error it could fall either way, so we took 105D (105,000 yen/sqm) — both the mode and the conservative reading.

We verified the seller's calculation printed in the listing: "land assessed value about 31.09 million yen, about 104% of the asking price". That is 31.09 million over 270.33 sqm, or about 115,000 yen/sqm, which corresponds to the 115D shown on the map. The seller's arithmetic is consistent with the roadside value map and is not inflated. However, because the property might belong to the 105D block, we followed our policy of taking the figure that produces the lower assessment and used 105,000 yen/sqm, giving 94.9%. On sensitivity: 115D gives 104.0%, 110D gives 99.5%, and applying the 99D of fiscal 2024 and 2025 to fiscal 2026 still gives 89.5%. The roadside value needed to reach 80% is 88,484 yen/sqm, and no street in Iwaoka-cho falls below that. The three-year series follows the same street on sheet 34010: 99,000 yen in 2024, 99,000 in 2025 and 105,000 in 2026 (the western street rises similarly, 105D to 110D to 115D). The leasehold ratio symbol is D (60%) on every relevant street.

We took the registered 270.33 sqm as the effective land area in full. We read the detail page directly and confirmed the private road burden field is empty. There is no mention of a flagpole plot or sloped portion, and the photos show both houses fronting the road directly with no access strip. However, the frontage is listed as a 5.00 m private road to the south-west, and whether it is a designated-position road cannot be determined from the listing, which includes no site plan. Since this is a judgement call, here is the sensitivity: if half the 5 m private road were a burden (2.5 m by a 20 m frontage, 50 sqm), usable land would be 220.33 sqm and the assessed ratio 77.4%; a 30 sqm burden gives 84.4% and 20 sqm gives 87.9%. Only an unrecorded burden on the scale of 50 sqm would reverse the conclusion.

We downloaded and inspected all ten photos (two exteriors, two floor plans, six interiors). No site plan or survey drawing is included. On the frontage (south-west, 5 m private road), both houses sit at much the same level as the road surface. In the photo of house B, the gate post, gate and parking space run on from the asphalt without a step, rising only a few centimetres at the kerb. House A likewise has its concrete parking apron flush with the road. There is no step at the boundary, no stepped access, no slope face and no cut face. We checked all three neighbouring boundaries. The north-west of house A is one to two courses of block (about 0.2 to 0.4 m) with a cast fence, and the neighbouring ground is at much the same level. The north-east of house A is a block wall; counting the horizontal joints gives four courses, about 0.8 m, cross-checked at 0.8 to 1.0 m against the neighbour's first-floor window sill (about 0.9 m above ground). The south-east of house B is a decorative block wall with an aluminium fence: the joints give about 0.8 m, while the gate post's letter slot (about 1.1 m above ground) puts the total height at about 1.3 m. Enlarging the gap in the fence tenfold, however, showed the brick joints of the neighbouring apartment continuing below the top of the wall, meaning the neighbouring ground is not at the level of the wall top. We judged it a boundary wall doubling as a screen, not a retaining wall.

We corroborated the terrain with national elevation data. Measuring a 200 m square around the site on a 5 by 5 grid gave 77.1 to 79.6 m on a uniform gradient of about 1.2%, with no terrace scarp and no artificial cut or fill anywhere. The natural fall across the 15 to 20 m width of the plot is about 0.2 m, so a retaining wall of 1 m or more would not be consistent with the landform either.