[Assessed 84.4%] Land in Funabashi, Chiba — 5 min from Takifudo Sta.

Reading the dimensions off the site plan drawn by the seller shows a flag-shaped lot: a main section of about 12.9 by 10.0 metres at the back, reached by a corridor about 2.2 to 2.7 metres wide and about 15.1 metres long. Subtracting the main section's 129.00 square metres from the registered 165.75 leaves 36.75 square metres — exactly the corridor — so this is a measured figure, not an estimate. Nothing can be built on the corridor, so we deducted it and used 129.00 square metres as effective residential land.

Both SUUMO and athome give the access as "southeast, 2.2 metres", but that figure matches the corridor width on the site plan, while the site plan itself records the frontage road as about 6 metres wide. We concluded the access field most likely holds the corridor width. The setback field reads "–" (no setback required), there is no private-road burden, and neither site flags the plot as unable to be rebuilt. Every road in this residential area carries a street-front value on the tax map. Even so, we suggest confirming the road's width and classification with the agent.

We geocoded five block reference points in Minamimisaki 2-chome and matched them against the circled block numbers on the street-value map to calibrate the position. Within the district the residential streets run from 72,000 to 81,000 yen and the arterial roads 86,000 and 88,000 yen. We took the lowest residential figure, 72,000 yen, so the arterials would not pull it up. An 80% cost-approach ratio would require 68,217 yen per square metre, and the district's lowest 2026 value is 72,000 yen — so no road here brings the ratio below 80%.

Only one of the seventeen listing images is a photograph of the site (the rest are two site plans, a floor plan, ten interior shots and a station view). That one photograph looks toward the house from the corridor, and the concrete approach, the carport and the entrance all sit at the same level. There is a block wall on the western boundary, but the ground on the far side is at the same height, so we judged it a boundary wall rather than a retaining structure. National elevation data across 81 points over a 40-metre square returned 27.0 to 28.1 metres, with neighbouring points differing by at most 0.2 metres.

The listing states plainly that an encroachment exists. Nothing about its nature, position or whether it can be resolved — including any written agreement — appears in the listing, so this needs checking.

The plot carries an old house, described as "usable as it stands", but its structure, floor area and construction date are all undisclosed. Without them the remaining useful life cannot be calculated, so we value the building at zero and base the cost approach on the land alone. Judging by the floor plan the house is not new, and demolition costs may arise.