Define the conditions that can exclude a parcel before scoring viable alternatives against comparable costs and evidence.
Start with the decision you need to make
A useful matrix starts with one concrete statement: what you want to do, for whom, when and with which resources. Buying a home site, retaining a family reserve and developing several units raise different questions. Write a preliminary brief covering space, access, water and timing without presenting it as an approved project. Convert each need into a question that somebody can answer with evidence. Privacy might be a preference, whereas reaching the property with a necessary vehicle might be essential. IGAC's explanation of property identification provides a basis for connecting the assessment to an identifiable parcel; the matrix proposed here is our editorial comparison method, not an official form. If the purpose remains undecided, compare two separate use scenarios. Combining them often generates a misleading ranking: the winner appears suitable for everything even though nobody has established whether it can support either specific alternative in practice.
Separate essential conditions from preferences
Do not begin by awarding stars for the view. First create a table of conditions that must be resolved for your intended purpose before properties compete on price. These might include sufficiently identified ownership, usable and legally defensible access, compatibility with the intended use and a technical response to relevant hazards. Ask the appropriate professional how each condition should be verified; a map screenshot cannot certify a property condition by itself. Use explicit states: confirmed, incompatible or pending. A pending answer retains its uncertainty even when the seller expects a favourable outcome. Only then add graded preferences such as distance, orientation, scenery or proximity to relatives. This prevents ten minor advantages from mathematically compensating for a problem that could prevent the project. The Civil Code demonstrates that passage has its own legal dimension, while municipal mapping organises hazards and risks. Both deserve separate investigation before becoming mere numbers within an overall score.
Each cell should show where its answer came from
Place a document reference, date, responsible person and limitation beside each criterion. If one property has a commissioned survey while another has only a sales sketch, their areas are not yet comparable at the same confidence level. The same issue arises when one has a utility provider's response and the other merely has a nearby pole. EPM's portal distinguishes a connection process from network mapping; the matrix should preserve that distinction between general context and a project response. Arrange a short review with advisers to identify material belonging to another parcel or an outdated version. Leaving a cell empty and assigning an investigation is preferable to inventing an optimistic answer. The result becomes a list of outstanding decisions as well as a ranking. That list supports proportionate requests to the owner and helps reserve more expensive investigations for the alternatives that genuinely remain under consideration for your particular purpose.
Compare the cost of reaching the same outcome
The purchase price is one item rather than the whole undertaking. Prepare a budget for each option up to a comparable state, such as an identified parcel with a feasible project ready for detailed design. Include studies, procedures, access preparation, utility connections and works that your technical advisers consider necessary. Avoid using one precise figure when the scope is undefined; record a working range and its assumptions or mark the quotation as outstanding. Separate spending before purchase, subsequent capital expenditure and recurring costs. A cheaper parcel may require more cash early, while another allows expenditure to be spread over time. Check that the same work has not been counted twice through overlapping quotations. This exercise is a budgeting tool rather than a commercial valuation or a financing guarantee. It becomes more useful when suppliers quote against a shared description and state exclusions, validity and the access conditions necessary to perform their work.
Choose weights before discovering the winner
Agree weights for graded preferences before calculating the results. A family may prioritise schools and medical care, while a productive operation may favour logistics and reliable service. Explain what each score means using observable conditions. Calling access excellent is ambiguous; describing whether the route meets the defined vehicle and timetable makes the assessment reviewable. These weights express personal choices and do not automatically carry the endorsement of a public authority. Display the original observations beside the total for that reason. Where two people are buying together, each can record their preferences before discussing the differences. Do not hide disagreement inside an average neither person recognises as their own decision. Keep essential conditions outside the weighting system: an attractive view cannot neutralise an unresolved hazard, and proximity to a network cannot demonstrate that the provider can meet the project's intended demand. A score should organise conversation rather than settle questions requiring professional evidence.
Test how easily the ranking changes
A matrix needs a second reading when small changes produce a different winner. Repeat the calculation using reasonable variations in priorities and documented scenarios for uncertain costs. Imagine two hypothetical properties: the first reduces travel but depends on a network extension without a quotation; the second requires more travel, although its connection is better defined. If the first wins only with the cheapest and fastest imaginable extension, its advantage rests on a fragile assumption. The response is not an arbitrary penalty but an investigation of that dependency followed by a review of the negotiation. Another property may lead under nearly every scenario despite lacking immediate emotional appeal. Record why that happens. This exercise does not forecast the future; it identifies information that could change the decision. Use that signal to prioritise the next enquiry instead of commissioning every possible study simultaneously for every piece of land visited during the search.
Turn the result into a concrete negotiation
Suppose a property scores well on location, but its entrance crosses another parcel and the available plans do not clearly relate the boundaries. The matrix should identify two different investigations: the legal basis for passage and the physical representation of the access route. Give the lawyer and surveyor focused questions with the same underlying documents. Different outcomes may follow: adequate access for the proposal, a need to agree additional conditions or a difficulty incompatible with your timetable. Do not assume that signing an easement solves every problem or that a measurement changes property rights. With professional drafting, negotiations can recognise tasks, responsible parties and evidence required before later commitments. The matrix then generates specific actions. A proposed discount becomes a discussion of identified obligations, uncertainties and costs that both parties can examine with their advisers, rather than an abstract argument about a property's supposed defects or an unsupported claim that every concern is minor.
Keep a decision that can be explained and reviewed
Before deciding, close a dated version recording the purpose, alternatives considered and reasons for rejection or preference. Attach only necessary documents, protect personal information and avoid distributing complete files without a purpose. State what remains outstanding, who will review it and which outcome would make you leave the transaction. The decision may be to continue investigating, negotiate conditions or withdraw; purchasing is not the only valid result. Revisit the matrix when the project changes, a new institutional response arrives or the budget changes materially. Recalculation is unnecessary for every informal market comment. Sellers can benefit too: clear property identification, studies with defined scope and utility responses reduce uncertain cells. A good matrix explains why one parcel fits a specific requirement better, even when another has more land or more appealing photographs. That is a more defensible basis for a decision than pursuing a supposedly universal score for the ideal property.
Two fictional candidates and a change of priorities
Editable example: scores from 1 to 5 are invented preferences rather than professional measurements. Initial weights: access 40%, budget 30% and project fit 30%. An unverified essential condition remains pending even with a high total.
| Criterion or test | Fictional candidate A | Fictional candidate B |
|---|---|---|
| Access: 40% weight | Assumed score 4: a comfortable observed route. Basis of passage still needs review. | Assumed score 2: final section needs investigation. Record a photograph, date and question for the responsible person. |
| Budget: 30% weight | Assumed score 3, using a comparable purchase and readiness budget. | Assumed score 5, conditional on quoting the outstanding connection and access work. |
| Project fit: 30% weight | Assumed score 4. A use response and technical scope are needed before establishing fit. | Assumed score 4 with the same outstanding checks; do not treat it as approval. |
| Initial result and sensitivity | 4×0.40 + 3×0.30 + 4×0.30 = 3.7. With weights of 20/50/30, it falls to 3.5. | 2×0.40 + 5×0.30 + 4×0.30 = 3.5. With weights of 20/50/30, it rises to 4.1. |
| Decision the score does not resolve | Request evidence and transfer criteria to the site comparator. Change weights before choosing rather than to justify a choice afterwards. | Even if it leads the second scenario, do not proceed while an essential condition such as suitable access is missing. |
Sources & bibliography
Read the full document, its date, amendments and scope. The editorial review date describes this page; it does not establish an authorisation or a specific answer about your plot or financing.
- 01IGAC: Instructivo de Identificación Predialwww.igac.gov.co · Version 1, effective from 19 June 2024; identification and planimetric surveying.
- 02Medellín: servicio oficial de cartografía de gestión del riesgowww.medellin.gov.co · Hazard and risk layers; check metadata, scale and current applicability for each enquiry.
- 03Cancillería: Código Civil, servidumbreswww.cancilleria.gov.co · Articles 905 onwards concern rights of way; their scope in an individual case requires legal analysis.
- 04EPM: aguas para constructores y urbanizadoreswww.epm.com.co · Network procedures and mapping; the presence of a network does not mean a connection has been approved.