The best tool for a development feasibility study and residual land value is the one that checks the inputs you give it, tests the residual at more than one build cost, sets it beside recorded land sales, and says what it could not establish. In the run read for this page, a 17,500 SF lot in Miami Beach produced a residual land value that ran from -$1.88M to $5.90M depending on build cost alone, and the run gave no weight to it for that reason.
What the tool has to do
A residual land value is arithmetic: the sales value of what you can build, less build cost, finance, selling costs, the profit the project must earn and any demolition. What is left is the most a developer can pay for the site. The arithmetic is easy. The hard parts are the inputs, and a tool earns its place on those:
- What can be built. The floor area the zoning allows, the height, the density, and the number of units that follow.
- What the end product sells or rents for nearby. Recorded sales, not a figure typed from memory.
- What it costs. Build cost per SF, soft costs, contingency, loan interest, demolition.
- A cross-check. The residual compared with what land has actually sold for around the site.
- The gaps. Inputs it could not find, and the document that would close each one.
For how the calculation works step by step, see how to calculate residual land value.
How the tools differ
Search results for this question are mostly vendor pages. The table describes what each says on its own site as of 13 October 2026. We have not run these products, and their pages are the authority on what they do.
| Tool | What its own page says it does | Outputs it names | Gap to check |
|---|---|---|---|
| ARGUS EstateMaster (Altus Group) | Development feasibility, budgeting and cash flow forecasting using discounted cash flow | Development margin, IRR, residual land value, sensitivity analysis | Inputs are typed in by the user; ask how sources are recorded |
| Feasly | Real estate intelligence and financial modelling | Profit, returns, funding requirement, cash flow | Its page does not name IRR or residual land value |
| Archistar | Site data, insights and design generation, aimed at the Australian market | Site maps, filterable insights, previews of a structure on the land | Its page does not describe a cash flow or IRR module |
| A spreadsheet | Whatever you build | Whatever you build | Nothing checks the inputs |
| Titleman | Starts from an address and returns a report, a workbook and a memo | Schemes, residual, land-sale cross-check, a source on each figure | Local planning rules are read, not confirmed by the city |
A modelling tool and a research tool answer different questions. A modelling tool is good when you already know the inputs. A research tool is good when the inputs are what you are missing. The run below is the second kind.
The run
The run was made on a Titleman QA account on 7 October 2026. The request asked, for a Miami Beach lot, what could be built under current zoning, the best use, end-product sale and rent values nearby, costs, returns and key risks. The owner's stated facts were: demolition costs about $100,000, the existing building uses a FAR of about 1.5, and zoning allows 4.0.
It started at 17:26:59 UTC and was delivered at 18:32:54 UTC, 1 hour 5 minutes 55 seconds on the clock. It came back with an Excel workbook, a memo in Word, Markdown and PDF, a deck, a zoning report and an evidence folder. The workbook has the sheets "Assumptions", "Comparable Land Sales", "Development Budget", "Sources & Uses", "Land Residual Value & Returns" and "Sensitivity".
It checked the owner's inputs
| Item | Owner said | Records show |
|---|---|---|
| Existing building FAR | about 1.5 | 0.43 (7,552 SF on a 17,500 SF lot) |
| FAR zoning allows | 4.0 | 1.5 on that street, which is 26,250 SF |
At 4.0 the lot would carry 70,000 SF. The height limit of 55 ft holds 5 storeys at the run's assumed 11 ft floor-to-floor, which at most is 87,500 SF with no setbacks, so 4.0 would need 80% of that before setbacks. The density limit of 100 units per acre caps the lot at 40 units either way. The run kept both of the owner's figures in the answer, beside the records, and said the study depends on which is right. It also noted that a higher FAR is under discussion in a pending city plan and that the outcome of the latest vote was not established.
It sized five schemes
| Scheme | Floor area | Units |
|---|---|---|
| Addition, storefront kept | 26,250 SF | 16 condos |
| New building after demolition | 26,250 SF | 23 condos |
| Same building held as rentals | 26,250 SF | 23 apartments |
| Test at 2.0 FAR | 35,000 SF | 31 condos |
| Test at the owner's 4.0 FAR | 70,000 SF | 40 units, a density cap |
These are area studies, using 80% saleable area and a 900 SF average unit, not an architect's plan. A new residential building for sale came out ahead of the rental case and of the addition, and the run labelled that order indicative: the rental inputs were city-wide averages, and the order only holds if the historic board lets the existing shell go.
The residual changed sign
Cost inputs were stated as assumptions: hard cost $350 per SF, tested at $300 and $525; soft costs 22% and contingency 5% of hard cost; selling costs 7% of sales; a loan of 60% of cost at 8.5% over 1.5 years; developer profit 15% of sales; demolition $100,000.
For the new-building scheme, the residual land value was:
- $5.90M at $300 per SF of hard cost
- -$1.88M at $525 per SF
A negative residual is not a land value. It means that at that cost the project does not carry any land. Hard cost alone moved the answer by $7.8M, so the run gave the residual a weight of zero.
Land sales carried the opinion
Two recorded sales of development land, $277.78 and $311.11 per SF of land, were carried to the lot's location and less demolition. They gave a range of $5.05M to $7.23M, midpoint $6.14M. The residual range of -$1.88M to $5.90M did not contain that midpoint, and the run said so instead of blending them. Beside that, the lot was listed at $9.9M, or $565.71 per SF of land, and its assessed land value was $5.78M. The run did not state a price as its answer. It gave the facts and the method, so the price can be re-worked in the workbook when an input changes.
How the 1,014 fact rows split
| Status | Rows |
|---|---|
| Derived | 554 |
| Found | 109 |
| Fact | 59 |
| Assumed | 17 |
| Missing | 275 |
275 rows, 27% of the total, were left empty because nothing sourced was found. 17 assumed rows are the places where a person can disagree and re-run.
What the run could not establish
- Whether the city's current zoning text matches the copy it read. A zoning verification letter closes this.
- Whether the pending city plan was adopted, and what it gives this lot.
- Whether the historic board will allow demolition of the existing shell.
- The amount of a lien the city marks on the parcel.
- A contractor's price for the building.
- Recent sales and leases from a transactions source that did not answer.
- Rents and cap rates for new apartments in the area. The rental inputs are city-wide averages.
Each of these has a named document that closes it. That list is as much a part of the output as the residual.
Six questions to ask any feasibility tool
- Does it check my inputs against records, or accept them? Ask it what it does when your FAR is wrong.
- Does it show the residual at more than one build cost? One cost gives one number that looks more certain than it is.
- Does it cross-check against recorded land sales? Two sales is a thin basis. Ask whether it says so.
- Can I change an assumption and see the result move? Ask to see the sheet.
- Does it list what it could not find? A blank that stays blank is better than a plausible figure.
- Does it tell me which document closes each gap? A zoning letter, a contractor's budget, a title search.
For the comparison of tools by category, see property development feasibility software: how to choose. For a worked residual with a different outcome, see a development site priced at $7.98M, modelled at $5.33M.
To see a feasibility run on a site you know, request a demo.
Frequently asked questions
What is the best tool for a development feasibility study? The best tool for your case is the one that checks the inputs you give it against records, tests the residual at more than one build cost, cross-checks it against land sales, and lists what it could not establish. A tool that only calculates what you type in is a spreadsheet with a better interface.
How is residual land value calculated? Sales value of the finished project, less build cost, finance cost, selling costs, the developer's required profit and any demolition. What is left is the most a developer can pay for the land. If it is negative, the project does not carry a land value at those costs.
Should a residual land value be trusted on its own? No. The residual moves sharply with build cost and sale price, so it should be read next to recorded land sales. When the two disagree, the disagreement is a finding.
Does a feasibility tool replace a zoning letter or a contractor's price? No. A good run reads the zoning rules and states build cost as an assumption, then tells you which document closes each gap: a zoning verification letter, a contractor's budget, a title search.
Written by the Titleman team with AI assistance (Claude). Reviewed by the Titleman review desk. Figures read from the run's own records on 15 October 2026; the run was made on a Titleman QA account on 7 October 2026, on a real lot, with the address left out. Tool descriptions are what each vendor says on its own site as of 13 October 2026. A feasibility run is a screen, not an appraisal or a design.