--- title: "6 property appraisers in Rotterdam for townhouses" description: "Compare six Rotterdam property appraisers for townhouses by condition, plot, rights, foundation, report evidence and lender fit." url: "https://taxateurrotterdam.com/en/guides/best-property-appraiser-in-rotterdam-for-townhouses/" locale: "en" author: "Huib Faber" publishedDate: "2026-09-06T00:00:00.000Z" updatedDate: "2026-09-17T00:00:00.000Z" categories: "Comparison" tags: "property appraisers, Rotterdam, shortlist, valuation" --- # 6 property appraisers in Rotterdam for townhouses Compare six Rotterdam property appraisers for townhouses by condition, plot, rights, foundation, report evidence and lender fit. The best property appraiser in Rotterdam for a townhouse is the one that connects the home’s condition and plot to rights, foundation evidence and the report recipient. This shortlist names six providers and tests them against the same residential brief. A townhouse can look like an ordinary home while leasehold, shared access, foundation risk or extensions change the evidence. ## TL;DR Ooms Taxaties, Taxatheek Rotterdam, Taxxo, Kettner Makelaars, VENK and Langejan are the six researched candidates. Their public profiles differ in Rotterdam coverage, residential scope, NWWI or NRVT signals and detail about the report. Ask who checks the plot, rights, alterations and foundation context. Keep the 2025 Rotterdam WOZ model category for attached and townhouse homes separate from a private market valuation. ## Quick overview ### What you will find You will find named providers, the public facts that earned their place, open questions and a weighted fit score. The score helps you decide what to ask next; it does not forecast a valuation. ### Selection criteria **Attached-home and property fit (25 points):** 0 = no public evidence; 1 = partial or requires confirmation; 2 = clear evidence in the reviewed material. **Rotterdam coverage (20 points):** 0 = no public evidence; 1 = partial or requires confirmation; 2 = clear evidence in the reviewed material. **Rights, condition and foundation scope (20 points):** 0 = no public evidence; 1 = partial or requires confirmation; 2 = clear evidence in the reviewed material. **Registration and report review evidence (15 points):** 0 = no public evidence; 1 = partial or requires confirmation; 2 = clear evidence in the reviewed material. **Process and handover clarity (10 points):** 0 = no public evidence; 1 = partial or requires confirmation; 2 = clear evidence in the reviewed material. **Evidence transparency (10 points):** 0 = no public evidence; 1 = partial or requires confirmation; 2 = clear evidence in the reviewed material. ### Who this suits Choose among these providers when you are buying, selling, refinancing or dividing a Rotterdam townhouse, herenhuis or attached home. It fits a residential decision; a commercial conversion or large redevelopment needs a broader brief. ### How the research works Each candidate was checked against the same six criteria and the same Rotterdam decision. A 2 means clear public evidence, 1 means partial evidence or a point to confirm, and 0 means the opened material did not establish the point. When a townhouse has unusual rights or condition, separate your Rotterdam evidence from [area and property-type evidence](https://taxatieeindhoven.com/property-valuation-eindhoven-guide/) before you compare providers. If NHG is part of your finance brief, compare NHG physical valuation report requirements with the recipient’s instruction before you set the valuation date. That condition belongs to an NHG setting, not to every valuation. ## Related valuation questions Before you choose, compare the same property, purpose and recipient through [property-appraiser quote comparisons](/en/guides/compare-property-appraisers/) so every proposal answers the same brief. When an accepted offer sets the clock, align the lender deadline with [valuation timing when buying a home](/en/guides/valuation-when-buying-a-home/) before you set the inspection date. Before you compare names, write the property type, purpose, recipient, valuation date and the records that could alter the scope into one brief. That keeps an attractive public signal in its place: it informs the conversation but does not replace the assignment you need.
Townhouse valuation evidence for condition, plot, rights, foundation and recipient in Rotterdam
The Rotterdam WOZ model for 2025 groups semi-detached, attached and townhouse homes in a category reported at 9.2% of the model sample. That municipal model is context, not the market value of your address. ## Complete shortlist at a glance **Kettner Makelaars**: 90/100 fit based on public evidence; A Rotterdam residential, mortgage or new construction brief where an urgent appointment or project-stage question needs to be discussed. **Ooms Taxaties**: 100/100 fit based on public evidence; A broad Rotterdam residential brief that may involve a mortgage, renovation, refinancing, inheritance or a new construction stage. **Taxatheek Rotterdam**: 95/100 fit based on public evidence; A residential, investment-property or mixed-property brief where mortgage, renovation, refinancing, WOZ, division or inheritance may matter. **Taxxo**: 95/100 fit based on public evidence; A Rotterdam residential brief where an online intake, apartment records or published delivery timing are useful. **VENK makelaars taxateurs**: 90/100 fit based on public evidence; A Rotterdam residential mortgage, sale or personal-certainty assignment where a named residential team and multilingual contact are useful. **Makelaarskantoor Langejan**: 82.5/100 fit based on public evidence; A residential valuation where you want the report scope to mention price development, surroundings, transactions, condition and energy performance. ## Which provider fits your situation? Choose among these providers when you are buying, selling, refinancing or dividing a Rotterdam townhouse, herenhuis or attached home. It fits a residential decision; a commercial conversion or large redevelopment needs a broader brief. For a standard residential assignment, compare all six candidates on report purpose and evidence. For leasehold, an extension, shared access or foundation concern, give the document list and inspection scope more weight than a general locality claim. ## Detailed provider breakdown ### Kettner Makelaars **Best fit:** A Rotterdam residential, mortgage or new construction brief where an urgent appointment or project-stage question needs to be discussed. **Public evidence:** The service presents NVM/NWWI valuation work, mortgage and NHG use, independence language and a claimed 48-hour urgent appointment. The business states more than 40 years in the region and a new construction service claims about 330 homes accompanied. **Questions to confirm:** The 48-hour and 330-home figures are provider claims tied to stated conditions. Ask whether they apply to your property, fee and recipient. **Fit score:** Fit score based on public evidence: 90/100. This is a weighted record from 17 September 2026, not a quality or outcome rating. ### Ooms Taxaties **Best fit:** A broad Rotterdam residential brief that may involve a mortgage, renovation, refinancing, inheritance or a new construction stage. **Public evidence:** The residential service describes inspected and validated reports, NVM, Dynamis and Kadaster data, digital delivery and work before or during construction. The Rotterdam office names Senior NVM Register Taxateurs. **Questions to confirm:** The reviewed public information gives no universal fee or delivery promise. Confirm the property-specific recipient and timing. **Fit score:** Fit score based on public evidence: 100/100. This is a weighted record from 17 September 2026, not a quality or outcome rating. ### Taxatheek Rotterdam **Best fit:** A residential, investment-property or mixed-property brief where mortgage, renovation, refinancing, WOZ, division or inheritance may matter. **Public evidence:** The Rotterdam service area includes Rotterdam and surrounding regions. The public team lists named RT professionals, NVM and NRVT signals, and the home service describes dimensions, legal, building and energy evidence with NWWI report review. **Questions to confirm:** The more-than-25-years statement and other experience claims are provider statements. No single current fee or delivery time is published. **Fit score:** Fit score based on public evidence: 95/100. This is a weighted record from 17 September 2026, not a quality or outcome rating. ### Taxxo **Best fit:** A Rotterdam residential brief where an online intake, apartment records or published delivery timing are useful. **Public evidence:** Taxxo states NWWI-checked reports, an NRVT Master Wonen profile and Rotterdam coverage. Its process mentions an inspection, valuation date, documents, VvE records and delivery in 3 or 5 working days; the business says it began in 2007. **Questions to confirm:** The public process does not give one current fee, and lender acceptance remains a separate confirmation. **Fit score:** Fit score based on public evidence: 95/100. This is a weighted record from 17 September 2026, not a quality or outcome rating. ### VENK makelaars taxateurs **Best fit:** A Rotterdam residential mortgage, sale or personal-certainty assignment where a named residential team and multilingual contact are useful. **Public evidence:** VENK describes mortgage, sale and personal-use valuations with NVM and NWWI signals. Its Funda profile lists NRVT and NWWI, Dutch, English and German, and 9.3 from 32 reviews. **Questions to confirm:** The Funda score does not measure valuation accuracy. The reviewed pages give no universal fee or delivery promise. **Fit score:** Fit score based on public evidence: 90/100. This is a weighted record from 17 September 2026, not a quality or outcome rating. ### Makelaarskantoor Langejan **Best fit:** A residential valuation where you want the report scope to mention price development, surroundings, transactions, condition and energy performance. **Public evidence:** The certified valuation service states NVM, NRVT and NWWI membership and describes those report elements as part of the evidence. **Questions to confirm:** The reviewed service page gives no Rotterdam-specific fee or standard delivery time. Confirm the intended recipient. **Fit score:** Fit score based on public evidence: 82.5/100. This is a weighted record from 17 September 2026, not a quality or outcome rating. ## Categories For a standard residential assignment, compare all six candidates on report purpose and evidence. For leasehold, an extension, shared access or foundation concern, give the document list and inspection scope more weight than a general locality claim. ## Situations A buyer should send plans and rights records before the inspection; an owner should disclose alterations and foundation information; a seller should separate a WOZ reference from the market value needed for the transaction. ## What public pricing shows No comparable townhouse fee is published by the six providers. Ask whether plot and rights checks, foundation questions, inspection, report review, corrections and recipient communication are included. ## Quick reference ### Highest weighted fit Ooms Taxaties leads the matrix for this query; Taxatheek Rotterdam follows. Compare both profiles with your own recipient and property brief. ### Most useful specialist question A buyer should send plans and rights records before the inspection; an owner should disclose alterations and foundation information; a seller should separate a WOZ reference from the market value needed for the transaction. Ask the candidate to name the evidence and handover conditions in writing. ### Lowest public evidence score Makelaarskantoor Langejan is still included because topic and geography fit are present; its open questions need a direct answer before instruction. ## Other researched options The sixth named option, Makelaarskantoor Langejan, stays visible because its public evidence meets the topic and geography threshold. Its open questions remain part of the comparison. ## Comparison cards - **Assignment:** Match the purpose, property, valuation date and recipient before comparing names. - **Evidence:** Match the documents to the property type, rights, condition and use. - **Credentials:** Check the registration or report review requirement that your recipient requires. - **Handover:** Put fee, timing, corrections and follow-up responsibility in writing. ## Getting started 1. Write the property, purpose, recipient and valuation date in one brief. 2. Send that brief and the same records to each candidate. 3. Compare missing answers before comparing the total fee. ## Checklist before you order - Property address and type - Purpose and intended recipient - Valuation date and delivery deadline - Rights, plans, VvE or lease records where relevant - Inspection, report review, corrections, fee and follow-up - One question for every public claim you rely on ## Frequently asked questions ### Does the highest score mean this provider is the best for every property? No. The score records the fit of public evidence for this query on 17 September 2026. Your property, assignment and recipient can change the order. ### What should you send before asking for a quote? Send the address, property type, purpose, intended recipient, valuation date, deadline and records that change the assignment. Add the topic-specific documents named in the shortlist. ### Can a public claim settle the decision? No. Provider claims, review scores, delivery times and prices need a fresh confirmation. The recipient decides whether a report fits the live file. ### Why is Ooms Taxaties first in this shortlist? Ooms Taxaties has the highest weighted fit in the dated matrix for this query. That position reflects public evidence across the six criteria and does not create an endorsement. ## Final notes This shortlist is a dated decision aid. Fees, availability, reviews, report models and recipient rules can change. Confirm the live assignment with the candidate and the party that will use the report. ## Take action Choose two or three names, send the same brief and ask each one to state what is included and what remains open. That gives you a defensible next step without turning public claims into promises.