Illustrative only
These are not client matters, not approvals, and not before-and-after valuations. They match the demo addresses in the product.
Illustrative example
An owner who lives in the house and reports no recent tenancy is the profile where an urban lot split review is even worth opening. In the demo, that is 123 Example Street, Los Angeles. The result can say a potential pathway exists. It still has no APN, no zone, and no square footage. The real file would need a survey and title before anyone drew a line.
Illustrative example
456 Rental Avenue, Pasadena, is scripted so the lot-split slogan steps back and a duplex review steps forward. An investor who cannot sign an owner-occupancy affidavit should not be walked into a lot-split budget. This is a teaching example, not a client result and not a Pasadena decision.
Illustrative example
789 Hillside Drive, Glendale, is scripted as further review. Slope, access, and grading are why we refuse a clean pathway. No contour, no retaining-wall cost, and no fire-zone label is invented for the street.
Illustrative example
101 Sample Road, Long Beach, is scripted toward an ADU strategy. It shows an alternative when a split is the wrong first spend. It is not a floor plan, a parking study, or a coastal determination.