[Assessed 83.2%] Land, 5 min from Kami-Igusa Station, Suginami Ward, Tokyo

The frontage field reads "-", but the site plan settled the access arrangement. The plot reaches a road of about 7.25 m to the west through a passage strip about 2.0 m wide and 14.6 m long — a flagpole plot. We measured the pole off the site plan. Using the 7.25 m road width to derive a scale of 1.63 px/m and reconstructing the outline gives a strip along the northern edge of 2.0 m by about 14.6 m (about 29.6 sqm) plus a body of about 12.65 m by 12.31 m (about 155.7 sqm), totalling about 185 sqm — closely matching the registered 192.52 sqm. So the 192.52 sqm includes the pole, and we deducted 29.2 sqm to give 163.32 sqm of usable land. On the plan the pole alone is hatched and annotated "passage agreement available", drawn separately from the body, which supports this. Since it is a judgement call, both figures: with the deduction the assessed ratio is 83.2%; if the 192.52 sqm covered only the body and the pole were a separate parcel, no deduction would apply and it would be 98.1%. We took the conservative deduction as the headline.

There are limits on what can be built. Under Article 3 of the Tokyo Metropolitan Building Safety Ordinance, a site reaching the road only through a passage strip needs a width of at least 2 m where the strip is 20 m or less in length, and that provision applies only to single houses of 200 sqm or less in floor area. At about 14.6 m long and about 2.0 m wide this just complies and rebuilding is possible — but only because 100% floor area ratio over 192.52 sqm gives 192.52 sqm, which is under 200 sqm. A row house, an apartment block or any scheme over 200 sqm would require a 3 m strip and cannot be built here. In practice this is a single-house site. The "conditions" field also reads "sold subject to building conditions": a construction contract must be signed with the seller's nominated builder within a set period, and the land cannot be bought on its own. The listing's own copy says "please enquire about removing the building condition", so whether it can be lifted is a matter of negotiation.

We fixed the location starting from the property coordinates embedded in the listing HTML, calibrated against every block reference point in Igusa 5-chome — blocks 1 to 19 — geocoded through the Geospatial Information Authority address API (the other pair of coordinates in the same HTML are the coordinates of Kami-Igusa and Nishi-Ogikubo stations, which we did not use). The site is about 48 m south-west of block 16 and about 71 m east of block 17, sitting on the seam where the eastern edge of map 43004 overlaps the western edge of 43005. We derived the scale independently two ways, from blocks 13 and 14 (which share a longitude) and from block 10, and both came out at about 1.63 px/m.

Two streets are candidates: 410D on the 43004 side (running north-south) and 400D on the 43005 side (running east-west). We took the conservative 400D (400,000 yen/sqm). The surrounding bands run 390D to 410D across blocks 16, 17, 9, 8 and 15, with 470C on the wider road to the north-west, 360D to 390D in the western part of Igusa 5-chome, and 440D on the arterial to the north. On sensitivity: 410D gives 85.3% and even 390D gives 81.1%, holding above 80%. The roadside value needed to reach 80% is 384,521 yen/sqm on the 163.32 sqm basis; only 380D or below would fall short at 79.1%, and those bands lie more than 200 m west of the site. The three-year series follows the same street on the same map: 350,000 yen in 2024, 370,000 in 2025 and 400,000 in 2026 (the 43004 side runs 360D to 390D to 410D). The leasehold ratio symbol is D (60%) throughout the surrounding area. This is neither a multiplier area nor a land readjustment area.

We downloaded and inspected all five site photos (three exteriors from two directions, two of the frontage road to the west) and the site plan, checking the whole perimeter. The north-west boundary is a precast concrete panel fence; the eastern boundary with the neighbouring rental apartment is two courses of block (about 0.4 m) with a mesh fence; the northern and southern boundaries are block walls of three to four courses (about 0.6 to 0.8 m). In every case the ground is at the same level on both sides — these are screen and boundary walls, not earth retention. We put the retaining height at about 0.1 to 0.4 m, cross-checking the block joint counts against the fact that the tyres of a car parked beyond the northern boundary sit at much the same level as the ground on the site side. The road surface and the passage surface run on flush across a gutter and concrete apron with no step at all, and there are no stairs — the passage is a flat asphalt approach. The vacant plot is level throughout, with no protective sheeting and no cut faces.

We corroborated the terrain with national 1 m laser survey data, measuring 12 points: the centre of the site, the midpoint of the pole, the frontage road, the far side of the road, and the neighbouring plots to the north, south, east and west. All fell between 49.0 and 49.6 m, a total range of just 0.6 m, with the centre of the site at 49.4 m against 49.0 m on the frontage road — a difference of 0.4 m. This confirms independently of the photo assessment that there is no step on the metre scale.