A letter dated XXXX, XXXX XXXX, indicated that our buyer 's loan was denied because our property was deemed unserviceable through a loan backed by XXXX XXXX. The lender stated that based on documents received from the NJ XXXX Zoning Commission, the property could not be rebuilt to its current footprint if substantially destroyed. We suspected an error was made, as our loan on the property is currently serviced by Fannie Mae. 
We therefore consulted with the NJ XXXX Zoning Commission and obtained additional documentation indicating that the under-writer was incorrect ; a use variance granted when the property was originally zoned in 1985 made the issue around rebuilding not applicable to our residence. We received this information in writing from the NJ XXXX Zoning Commission on XXXX XXXX, which the buyer used as a basis for challenging the decline of the loan. 
A week later, we learned that the under-writer was seeking additional information from the Building Department of the XXXX of XXXX to indicate that the property could be rebuilt to its current density if substantially destroyed. Upon our request, the Mayor of XXXX, as well as XXXX XXXX ( Head of the Department ), consulted with the NJ XXXX Zoning Commission, and the Commission wrote an additional letter explicitly stating that the property is under its jurisdiction and that the property can be rebuilt to its current density if completely destroyed. This letter was forwarded to the under-writer on Friday, XXXX XXXX. 
On Monday, XXXX XXXX, we obtained an email from the under-writer, stating that the condo is still " not warrantable ... per the investor guidelines '' and that decision to decline remains. Our complaint is that we provided the exact documentation that the lender sought -- an explicit statement from the zoning authority that the condo could be rebuilt to its current density if substantially destroyed. The underwriter refuses to overturn the decision -- even with this additional documentation and without any explanation as to why the additional information is not satisfactory for the investor. 
