Scores organise your preferences; title, access or land-use obstacles require a separate decision even when a property scores highly.
Compare three candidates
Score each criterion from 0 to 5 and adjust its importance. Zero means unverified or unscored. A high total does not resolve a legal obstacle.
| Criterion | Weight | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Documented feasibility | ||||
| Legal access | ||||
| Confirmed utilities | ||||
| Complete budget | ||||
| Project fit | ||||
| Score out of 5 | 100% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Record any stop condition separately: seller identity, ownership, access or an incompatible use. This matrix organises preferences and does not certify a property.
Write one common requirement for all three plots
Before comparing prices, define a specific project: a home for personal use, agriculture, conservation or business premises. Add the maximum budget, horizon, required access and essential utilities. The matrix provides three candidate columns and five criteria; it works best when every candidate is assessed against the same requirement. Land that is excellent for forest conservation may be incompatible with a building programme without being a bad property generally. Give each candidate a short name and retain its property folio, municipality, location and advertisement version separately. Medellín's POT brings together mapping and planning material for land within its jurisdiction; a candidate in another municipality requires that authority's instrument. Do not extend a planning response about one plot to nearby alternatives. Also establish a comparison date so a recent quotation is not silently compared against an outdated price. The purpose is to reveal differences in both suitability and information quality, rather than disguise them behind a single neat number.
Connect each criterion with observable documents
Documented feasibility assesses what is known about delivering the project, including restrictions and procedures. Legal access concerns the evidence supporting the required route as well as its practical usefulness. Confirmed utilities requires project-specific answers rather than treating visible poles or pipes as available service. Complete budget measures how well the total outlay is understood, including exclusions that could change it. Project fit captures operational preferences such as distance, orientation or layout once those have been defined. EPM provides a route from feasibility through connection that helps frame utility questions. Law 1579 provides the registration framework for reviewing recorded rights where relevant. Neither source assigns scores automatically: you must explain the evidence behind each assessment. Avoid allowing the same feature to dominate three criteria simultaneously. For example, a good road may improve operational suitability, but its physical existence alone should not earn the highest legal access score. Keep the documentary finding separate from the preference it supports so another reviewer can follow your reasoning.
Define the score meanings before assigning them
The scale accepts whole numbers from zero to five. In the interface, zero means unverified or unscored, so it does not prove that the plot is unviable; it shows that the information is not ready for comparison. You might use one for weak evidence with a serious issue, two for several open conditions, three for a reasonable but conditional basis, four for strong support with minor outstanding items, and five for the best documented fit against the defined criterion. This is a working convention to write down and apply consistently, rather than technical certification. When two reviewers assign different scores, compare their documents and definitions first. A property tax bill does not replace a title review, and IGAC explains that cadastral registration does not independently establish ownership. Raising feasibility simply because a cadastral certificate exists would therefore misuse the scale. Keep a short evidence reference alongside your exported copy so a score can be challenged without guessing how it arose.
Understand how weights are normalised
The initial weights are thirty for feasibility, twenty for access, twenty for utilities, twenty for budget and ten for project fit. You may change them to suit the project within the form's limits. The result adds each score multiplied by its weight and divides by the total weight. Your numbers therefore do not have to sum to exactly one hundred: three, two, two, two and one would represent the same proportions. A zero weight removes a criterion from the average without removing checks that remain legally or practically necessary. If every weight is zero, the tool displays zero and the matrix loses its ability to rank candidates. Agree weights before seeing the winner to reduce the temptation to adjust them around a favourite. Medellín's land-use consultation provides information about activities, with a different scope from a licence; no weight can turn informational material into permission. Critical conditions must be decided separately from the numerical average, regardless of which preference receives the highest weight.
A ranking example and a change in priorities
Imagine three hypothetical candidates, A, B and C. In the order of the five criteria, A receives four, five, two, three and four; B receives five, three, five, two and four; C receives two, four, four, five and five. With the initial weights, their results are 3.60, 3.90 and 3.70 out of five. B leads that combination, although its budget is less complete and its access deserves a specific question. Now change the weights to twenty, fifteen, fifteen, forty and ten because budget uncertainty is decisive for you. A becomes 3.45, B becomes 3.40 and C becomes 4.10. The change does not discover a new truth about the land; it reveals how strongly your preference depends on criterion importance. Before selecting C, investigate why its feasibility score is two. These scores are illustrative assumptions rather than assessments of advertised properties or authority findings. Download both matrices and explain the changed priority alongside the results.
Keep stop conditions outside the average
An average permits trade-offs: a high budget score can mathematically offset a low access score. In practice, an attractive price cannot replace a missing right needed to reach the project. Before deciding, maintain a separate list of conditions requiring resolution: an unconfirmed seller's authority, inconsistent property identity, incompatible use or access unsuitable for the intended activity. Ask the appropriate professional to establish their significance and the evidence needed. Do not label every outstanding item impossible, but do not conceal an essential condition inside an average either. Law 1579 and the property's documents inform the registration review; POT mapping informs a different planning investigation. A candidate can remain conditional while documents are requested without being presented as ready to buy. The next expense should address a material uncertainty, such as obtaining a deed, verifying a route or consulting the precise proposed use. An attractive matrix does not justify committing funds before that check has been completed and interpreted.
Use the second visit to resolve differences
After the first ranking, plan a visit around specific questions. If A scored two for utilities, identify the provider, expected demand and missing document. If B has an incomplete budget, take a list of exclusions to price on site. If C appears to fit the project best, verify measurements and constraints affecting its layout instead of simply taking more photographs. Use the same visit format for all candidates and record the date, weather and person answering, distinguishing your observations from the seller's statements. EPM's construction resources help frame questions about networks and connection without turning a site visit into an official response. Update only scores supported by new evidence, keeping earlier versions to explain the change. If the visit reveals that an essential advertisement detail was wrong, reopen that investigation rather than merely subtracting a point. Comparison quality depends more on these checks than on how many decimal places appear beside the final weighted score.
Share a recommendation with verifiable reasons
The download button exports names, weights, scores and results; it does not include your documents or automatically explain the criteria. Attach one page describing the project, comparison date, chosen scale, evidence references and open conditions. Avoid including complete seller identification when sharing only a preliminary recommendation. Your conclusion might be to progress A, obtain two answers before choosing between B and C, or reject all three as incompatible. You may also conclude that information remains insufficient for a confident ranking. Do not turn a hundredth of a point into an objective advantage when scores are broad judgements. IGAC's distinction between cadastre and ownership illustrates why documents must be used for their actual function. When a new answer arrives, review its specific effect on both the matrix and critical conditions. The comparison has served its purpose when it helps identify what should be checked and why, as well as displaying a preferred candidate with reasons another person can examine.
Scoring sheet with evidence and critical conditions
Use the same questions for all three candidates. Document the reason for each score and keep blocking conditions outside the average. This sheet complements the comparator without verifying property or providing a professional recommendation.
| Item or decision | Information and evidence for your copy | Next check |
|---|---|---|
| Common comparison brief | Use, complete budget, horizon, access and essential utilities for candidates A, B and C. | Avoid comparing different rights or projects until those differences are explained in the worksheet. |
| Score and support for each criterion | Criterion, entered score, supporting document or visit, date and verification status. | Explain the score’s meaning; do not turn missing evidence into a favourable intuitive assessment. |
| Separate critical conditions | Unresolved access, offered interest, incompatible use or outstanding essential utility for each candidate. | Assign investigation and a progress criterion; a high scenery score does not offset a blocking condition. |
| Weight changes and sensitivity | Initial weights, justified alternative weights and results when repeating the calculation with unchanged data. | Record why ranking changes and what evidence could alter a score; a weight reflects your preference. |
| Decision and next visit | Candidate remaining under review, outstanding items, responsible person, visit question and clarification cost. | Retain the compared version and revisit it after new evidence; selection does not approve title or permits. |
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.
- 01Alcaldía de Medellín · POT y cartografía oficialwww.medellin.gov.co · Medellín
- 02Alcaldía de Medellín · Consulta de uso del suelo y alcance del conceptowww.medellin.gov.co · Medellín
- 03EPM · Vinculación de constructores y urbanizadores al servicio de aguaswww.epm.com.co · EPM service area
- 04Función Pública · Ley 1579 de 2012, Estatuto de Registrowww1.funcionpublica.gov.co · National
- 05IGAC · Instructivo del 26/05/2025, apartados 3–4: información catastral y efectos sobre el dominiowww.igac.gov.co · National