I would do it.

I would do it.

They aren't making any more land.

i would do it as well. you can always sell the house and the other lot seperately if you later decide you want to move.

The more the better.

Well this wasn't a question of whether I'd do it as this has no bearing on whether we would or not. Just something I thought of when DH and I started talking about buying it. Sorry I confused things with providing details about our situation.

I meant it to be more a generic question of what do you think of having the largest lot in a neighborhood. I'm guessing like having the largest house house you wouldn't get the full amount out of it if you went to sell? I could imagine it would be more of a benefit when selling, but money wise it wouldn't help especially in a regular non-acerage neighborhood.

BTW We don't really care about that in our situation as it is more the enjoyment we'll get out of it while we own it that matters to us.

I think it sounds like a neat idea in your case -- especially since so many of your rooms would benefit from the view. And with the real estate market being as soft as it is, now might be a good time to get the lot for a reasonable price. (In a hot market, a builder might price the lot at near his total profit had he actually built the house.)

But back to the 'generic' financial aspects.
In our neighborhood, the tax assessments value the minimum building lot at one amount per square foot, and any excess land at half that amount per square foot.

When you go to sell, I think most buyers have kind of a similar mindset. Here's a 'nice' house on a 'nice' lot -- or a 'nice' house on a 'fabulous' lot. It's worth more, certainly, but how much more? Too many variables that change with each situation...

IMO a 4 acre lot would be a great size for us. It would be even nicer if the house was centered on it nicely.. but you can't have everything lol

On a generic level - I think each area is different as to whether you would get your $$ back - that's the question right?

I think the answer would come from the following question:

Will the lot continue to be two parcels (way more valuable) or once improved is it no longer "splittable" (is that a word?). If it's really the largest lot and no longer splittable, I doubt you would get a dollar for dollar return (while obviously you would improve the desirability). Maintainng the ability to sell off or split the lot, I would think would provide dollar for dollar return.

If you can retain the ability to split it up, I agree with previous posters that you can probably get back that value quite easily.

In our case, we are currently buying the largest lot in the neighborhood. Similar situation, a house on one lot, with a second lot now attached. The detached garage is now on that lot. Legally, it is listed as a single lot, and while it is possible to separate them, it would require a ruling by the local planning commission and that would be a hassle (not to mention having to move the garage and relocate the septic system). So, while our lot IS more valuable than the others in the subdivision, it was probably not a dollar for dollar return on the investment in the land. Having said that, it absolutely makes the property more attractive, and without that extra land, we wouldn't have put in an offer on the house.

We've always have had the largest lot on any street we've lived on. It never hurt us. Most people like having a buffer between them and their neighbors and are willing to pay to have control over that buffer.
There's also a very large number of people out there who have dogs and they like having the option of letting their dogs have the run of their yard....or at least a part of it.
When you have a large yard you have options and that does play into things when folks are making their choices.

We have the largest lot in our subdivision. We are at 3.75 acres and the smallest is 2 acres (the code minimum). I have noticed in all the new developments around here that the cul de sac lots go first (unless there is something horrible about it) and the largest lots next. Often they are one and the same, as in our case. We like having a large lot. I don't care that it is the largest per se, but I prefer the size of ours over the 2 acre ones.

If you added the large tank (pond) then I'd just be careful where you added it if someone was going to buy the lot to put a house on it if you eventually sell...but overall, we're thinking of doing the same thing! (lot is beside us with trees-great neighbour buffer when you don't want to put up a fence!
good luck!

We bought the lot next door to where we currently live so that we wouldn't have neighbors on that side. We've used it as an extension of our yard for the past 3 years.

We were advised that in our area (MA) that it is possible for the lots (house and vacant lot) to become merged as one after a 5 year? period if we didn't have the ownership of each listed differently. This would then make the vacant lot no longer a buildable lot.

We have never changed the paperwork on either property as we are currently building again and both properties will be for sale this spring. We will be listing them separately because the lot is worth more on it's own.

I would do it for sure if it prevents the possibility of another purchaser of that land from building a house or garage or shed closer than you would like.