Feb 18, 2026 .
Highest & Best Use Under APV Guidelines
Chaithanya Murthy S
Chaithanya Murthy S is an accomplished IBBI Registered Valuer, Risk Engineer, Chartered Engineer, and Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessor with extensive experience in valuation and consultancy. Holding qualifications like B.E., M.Tech., M.Sc (REV), M.Sc (PMV) and multiple professional credentials, he brings strong technical and analytical expertise to every project.
His core areas include Land and Building Valuation, Plant and Machinery Valuation, Techno-Economic Viability Studies, Risk Assessment, and Insurance Anti-Fraud Analysis.
Australia’s property valuation ecosystem operates within a structured professional framework led by the Australian Property Institute (API). Its Australian Property Valuation (APV) Guidelines do not merely prescribe methods; they establish disciplined reasoning standards that separate valuation from speculation.
Among the most intellectually demanding areas under APV guidance are:
- Application of the Highest & Best Use (HBU) principle
- Determination of Residual Land Value (RLV) in development scenarios
- Incorporation of GST adjustments in commercial strata projects
Each of these elements individually requires analytical rigour. When combined—particularly in urban redevelopment contexts—they transform valuation into a financial feasibility exercise governed by professional accountability.
1. Highest & Best Use: More Than a Theoretical Exercise
Under APV Guidelines, Highest & Best Use is not a creative assumption; it is a structured legal and economic test. The valuer must demonstrate that the selected use satisfies four cumulative filters:
- Legally permissible
- Physically possible
- Financially feasible
- Maximally productive
The discipline lies in evidence. For example, a valuer cannot assume mixed-use redevelopment simply because surrounding properties exhibit such patterns. Zoning controls, planning overlays, height restrictions, environmental limitations, and infrastructure capacity must all be verified.
In metropolitan markets such as Sydney or Melbourne, redevelopment pressure often tempts over-optimistic assumptions. However, APV standards require that feasibility—not aspiration—drives valuation conclusions.
Common Professional Pitfall
A recurring valuation weakness arises where valuers assume the “most intensive possible use” rather than the “most probable feasible use.” The distinction is subtle but critical. A 12-storey commercial strata concept may be physically possible and legally permissible, but if market absorption does not support it, financial feasibility fails—and so does Highest & Best Use.
2. Residual Land Value: Where Valuation Meets Development Finance
Residual Land Value (RLV) is often misunderstood as a purely mathematical subtraction. Under APV discipline, however, it represents a risk-adjusted feasibility outcome.
Core formula (conceptual form):
Residual Land Value = Gross Realisation Value – (Development Costs + Finance + Marketing + Holding Costs + Developer’s Profit + Contingency)
The crucial element is the treatment of the Developer’s Profit. Under Australian practice, this is not an afterthought—it is a primary cost input. If profit is underestimated, land value is overstated. If overstated, development viability collapses.
The Development Profit Question
In commercial strata projects, the developer’s margin typically reflects:
- Project complexity
- Funding risk
- Market volatility
- Sales absorption timeline
Profit is usually assessed as a percentage of total development cost or gross realisation value, depending on asset class and market norm. APV-aligned practice demands benchmarking against contemporary market evidence, not historical averages.
3. Commercial Strata: The Valuation Complexity Multiplier
Commercial strata developments—office suites, retail pods, medical units—present unique challenges:
- Staggered settlement patterns
- Variable lot sizes
- Pre-sales influencing finance terms.
- Mixed owner-occupier and investor demand
Unlike single-title commercial buildings valued through capitalisation of income, strata developments are assessed primarily on projected individual lot sales.
This introduces timing risk. Sales absorption rates materially influence holding costs and finance charges, which directly impact residual value.
4. GST in Australian Commercial Property: Why Adjustments Matter
Australia’s Goods and Services Tax (GST) framework is governed nationally by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). For valuation professionals, GST treatment can significantly alter feasibility modelling outcomes.
Key GST Considerations in Commercial Strata:
- GST on Sale Price – Commercial strata sales are generally taxable supplies.
- Input Tax Credits – Developers may claim GST credits on construction costs.
- Margin Scheme Application – In some cases, GST is payable only on the margin rather than the total sale price.
- Cash Flow Timing – GST remittance timing affects finance cost modelling.
A frequent modelling error is double-counting GST—either by deducting GST-inclusive costs while using GST-exclusive revenue, or vice versa. APV-consistent valuation requires internal consistency in GST treatment throughout the residual model.
Example of Impact
If projected gross sales are treated as GST-inclusive without adjusting development costs similarly, the residual land value may be artificially suppressed. Conversely, ignoring GST liability can inflate feasibility, leading to overvaluation.
Thus, GST is not a tax compliance issue alone—it is a valuation variable.
5. Integrating HBU, RLV and GST: A Structured Analytical Flow
In practice, professional sequencing under APV Guidelines should follow this logic:
Step 1: Establish legally permissible development parameters
Step 2: Test physical capacity (site area, access, build efficiency)
Step 3: Conduct market absorption study
Step 4: Estimate Gross Realisation Value (lot-by-lot basis for strata)
Step 5: Model development costs (construction, consultants, finance, contingency)
Step 6: Apply a realistic developer’s profit
Step 7: Integrate GST treatment consistently
Step 8: Derive Residual Land Value
Only after this sequence can the valuer conclude whether redevelopment constitutes the Highest & Best Use.
6. Risk Sensitivity and Professional Judgment
APV-aligned best practice increasingly incorporates sensitivity analysis:
- What happens if sales rates slow by 20%?
- What if construction costs escalate?
- What if interest rates rise?
In volatile economic conditions, particularly during monetary tightening cycles, small shifts in finance cost assumptions can materially alter land value conclusions.
A robust valuation report, therefore, demonstrates not only the final figure but the reasoning resilience behind it.
7. Ethical Considerations in Residual Modelling
Residual valuation is inherently assumption-driven. This creates professional risk. Overly optimistic assumptions can be used to justify inflated land acquisition prices. Conservative modelling, on the other hand, may impede transactions.
The valuer’s obligation under APV Guidelines is independence, not deal facilitation. The methodology must reflect objective market evidence rather than client expectations.
8. Cross-Border Relevance for Indian Valuation Professionals
For professionals engaged in insolvency, restructuring, or cross-border advisory—particularly those operating under frameworks like India’s IBC—Australia’s APV approach offers key lessons:
- Structured feasibility before value conclusion
- Mandatory profit recognition in development valuation
- Tax integration within valuation modelling
- Clear articulation of assumptions
The disciplined integration of financial modelling and valuation reasoning strengthens credibility in tribunal or litigation settings.
Conclusion: Development Value Is an Outcome, Not an Assumption
Under Australia’s APV Guidelines, valuation of commercial strata development land is not a simplistic residual exercise. It is a layered analytical process grounded in:
- Highest & Best Use validation
- Financial feasibility testing
- Structured residual modelling
- Accurate GST treatment
- Risk-sensitive professional judgment
When properly executed, the residual land value reflects economic reality, not theoretical potential.
In development-driven markets, that distinction is what separates professional valuation from speculative forecasting.
Disclaimer
The material presented on this blog is intended solely for informational purposes. The opinions expressed here are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fintrac Advisors. No warranties are made regarding the completeness, reliability, or accuracy of this information. Any actions taken based on the information presented in this blog are solely at the reader’s risk, and we will not be liable for any losses or damages resulting from its use. Seeking professional expertise for such matters is strongly recommended. External links on this blog may direct users to third-party sites beyond our control. We do not take responsibility for their nature, content, or availability.
For any clarifications or queries, please feel free to reach out to us at: admin@fintracadvisors.com
