What Is Unequal Appraisal in Texas? A Deep Dive on Tax Code §41.43(b)(3)

Almost every successful residential property tax protest in Texas — at least every one filed without an MLS subscription and a private appraisal — wins on the same argument: unequal appraisal. The statutory provision is one paragraph long. The constitutional principle behind it goes back to 1876. And the math is something an eighth-grader can do. Yet this argument is so under-documented in plain English that most homeowners pay contingency firms 25–50% of their savings to make it for them. This guide explains what §41.43(b)(3) actually says, how the math works, and why it is the single strongest tool a Texas homeowner has.

The statutory text

The protest ground lives in Texas Tax Code Chapter 41 (Local Review), Section 41.43 (Protest of Determination of Value or Inequality of Appraisal). The key provision is §41.43(b), and within it, paragraph (3) is the residential homeowner's most powerful clause:

"(b) A protest on the ground of unequal appraisal of property shall be determined in favor of the protesting party unless the appraisal district establishes that:

...

(3) the appraised value of the property is equal to or less than the median appraised value of a reasonable number of comparable properties appropriately adjusted." — Texas Tax Code §41.43(b)(3)

Read carefully. The statute does not say "the CAD wins unless the protester proves X." It says "the protest shall be determined in favor of the protesting party unless the CAD proves" their valuation is equal to or below the median of an appropriately-adjusted comparable set. The burden of persuasion is on the CAD, not the homeowner.

In plain English: if the protester demonstrates that their appraised value exceeds the median appraised value of comparable properties, the ARB is statutorily required to rule for the protester. This is unusual in administrative law. Most tax appeals require the taxpayer to disprove the government's number. §41.43(b)(3) inverts that: the homeowner shows the comp data, and the CAD has to defend the difference.

Where the rule comes from: the Texas Constitution

The reason Texas law works this way traces to Article VIII, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution, which has required uniform and equal taxation of property since 1876:

"Taxation shall be equal and uniform. All real property and tangible personal property in this State... shall be taxed in proportion to its value, which shall be ascertained as may be provided by law." — Texas Constitution, Article VIII, §1

The "equal and uniform" requirement is not a suggestion. It is a constitutional mandate that two similar properties must be taxed at similar rates. If your home is appraised at $250 per square foot while every other home in your subdivision is appraised at $200 per square foot, the appraisal district has produced a non-uniform result — which the constitution prohibits.

§41.43(b)(3) is the procedural mechanism the Legislature wrote to give homeowners a tool to enforce that constitutional right. The "median of comparable properties" standard is, in effect, an operational definition of what "equal and uniform" means.

Two protest grounds, not one

Texas Tax Code §41.41 allows a property owner to protest on multiple independent grounds. The two most important for residential homeowners:

Ground	Section	What you're arguing
Excessive market value	§41.41(a)(1)	The CAD's appraised value exceeds what the property would actually sell for in an arm's-length transaction.
Unequal appraisal	§41.41(a)(2), enforced via §41.43(b)(3)	The CAD's appraised value exceeds the median appraised value of comparable properties — regardless of whether the market value is technically correct.

These two grounds are independent. You can win on either. You can argue both at the same hearing. The Form 50-132 lets you check a single combined box that preserves both arguments.

The distinction matters because the evidence required for each is very different. Excessive market value requires you to prove what your home is actually worth, which in Texas usually requires MLS sale data (not public), a private appraisal (you pay for it), or your own purchase price (only useful if recent and below the appraisal). Unequal appraisal requires you to compute a median from public data — which any homeowner with a CAD search box can do.

Why unequal appraisal is the stronger argument in Texas

Texas is one of approximately a dozen U.S. states that does not require disclosure of real estate sale prices. When a property sells in Texas, the deed records the conveyance — but not the price. The price is private between buyer and seller, and outside of MLS systems (accessible only to licensed real estate professionals), it stays private.

This creates a fundamental asymmetry in market-value protests. The appraisal district uses mass-appraisal models built on sale-data sources the CAD has access to but the homeowner generally doesn't. The homeowner is arguing against numbers they can't fully see — defending market value from inferior data is hard.

Unequal-appraisal protests reverse this. The data both sides use is the same public CAD-record data the homeowner can pull in two minutes from collincad.org or dallascad.org or tad.org. The argument is not "what is this house worth" but "what did you appraise the neighbors at, and why is mine higher per square foot." That comparison sits on data the homeowner has equal access to.

The median-of-comparable-properties standard

The statute says "median appraised value of a reasonable number of comparable properties." Two words matter:

"Median" — not mean

The median is the middle value in a sorted list. For a list of nine comparable per-square-foot appraised values, sort them low-to-high and pick the fifth. For an even-count list, take the average of the two middle values.

The Legislature chose median specifically because the median is resistant to outliers. If you have nine homes in your subdivision priced per-square-foot from $180 to $220, and one is appraised at $400 because of a unique condition (say, a complete tear-down/rebuild), that outlier does not shift the median — only the average. Median is the right statistical tool for a comparison standard, and the statute reflects that.

"Reasonable number of comparable properties"

The statute doesn't specify how many comparables you need. The common practice in CADs and the ARBs is that 5–10 comparable properties is sufficient. Three is on the low end and sometimes challenged; thirty is overkill. The sweet spot for a residential subdivision protest is usually 7–12 comps drawn from the same subdivision.

What makes a property "comparable" is the harder question, and it is where the "appropriately adjusted" language does its work.

"Appropriately adjusted" — what it means in practice

The full phrase in the statute is "median appraised value of a reasonable number of comparable properties appropriately adjusted." That four-word qualifier is what separates a strong argument from a weak one.

"Comparable" properties are not identical — they differ in square footage, year built, lot size, finish level, and structural features. "Appropriately adjusted" means accounting for those differences so the comparison is apples-to-apples. The standard adjustments are:

Variable	Typical adjustment approach
Square footage	The most important. The comparison is almost always on per-square-foot appraised value, which directly adjusts for size. Comp range typically ±25% of subject property's square footage.
Year built	±10 years from subject. Wider on very-old or very-new properties where comp scarcity forces a wider window.
Lot size	If lot values vary significantly within the subdivision (typical for properties with both small lots and acreage parcels), split the comp pool by lot-size band.
Finish level / class	CADs assign construction-class codes (e.g., "N95" for standard single-family, "N03" for builder upgrade-level). Stay within similar classes when possible.
Structural features	Pool, attached garage size, additions, accessory dwellings. If a comp has materially different features, either skip it or apply a documented adjustment.

Most protests use square-footage normalization (per-sqft appraised value) as the primary adjustment and let other variables filter the comp set. This is defensible and easy to present at the ARB.

The math: a worked example

Consider a 2,400-square-foot single-family home in a Plano, Texas subdivision (Collin County). The CAD appraised the home at $612,000 for 2026. That's $255 per square foot.

Pull the seven nearest comparable properties from the same subdivision — same construction era (2008–2014), similar square footage (2,200–2,650 sqft), single-story or two-story to match subject, no pools, attached two-car garages.

Comp	SqFt	2026 Appraised Value	Per-SqFt Appraised
1	2,310	$521,000	$226
2	2,425	$535,000	$221
3	2,580	$558,000	$216
4	2,395	$548,000	$229
5	2,470	$542,000	$219
6	2,510	$565,000	$225
7	2,365	$522,000	$221
Subject	2,400	$612,000	$255

Sort the seven comparables by per-square-foot appraised value:

The argument the homeowner makes at the informal review (and would repeat at the formal ARB hearing if necessary):

"CCAD has appraised my property at $255 per square foot. The median per-square-foot appraised value of seven comparable properties in my subdivision is $221. Under Texas Tax Code §41.43(b)(3), my protest must be determined in my favor unless CCAD establishes that the appraised value of my property is equal to or less than the median appraised value of a reasonable number of comparable properties appropriately adjusted. The comparison set I have presented is reasonable, comparable, and appropriately adjusted for square footage. I request that the appraised value be reduced to $530,400." — Sample protest argument under §41.43(b)(3)

This is the argument. The CAD will either grant it, counter at an intermediate number (e.g., $560,000), or rebut with their own evidence about why the comparable set is not actually comparable. The burden is on them to defend the difference.

Building a defensible comparable set

The strength of an unequal-appraisal protest is entirely about the quality of the comp set. The CAD will attack your set if it is:

• Too wide geographically. Comps from across town in a different school district are weak. Comps from the same subdivision are strong.
• Too varied in size. Comparing a 2,400 sqft subject to a 3,800 sqft comp is not "appropriately adjusted" no matter how the math is done. Stay within ±25%.
• Too varied in age. A 1965 home and a 2018 home in the same neighborhood are not really comparable. Stay within ±10 years of subject.
• Missing feature adjustments. If your comp has a pool and yours doesn't, either skip it or adjust value down by ~$15–25k.
• Cherry-picked too aggressively. A panel of three comps with the lowest per-sqft values in the subdivision is suspicious; a panel of seven from a defined comp set (with sort criteria you can articulate) is defensible.

The default playbook for a Texas residential protest:

1. Pull every property in your subdivision from the CAD database.
2. Filter to ±25% of subject square footage.
3. Filter to ±10 years of subject year-built.
4. Drop properties with feature differences too large to adjust (full additions, ADUs, lot-size outliers).
5. Sort the result by per-sqft appraised value.
6. Take the median.
7. Apply to your square footage. That's your target value.

This produces a clean, defensible packet that meets the "reasonable number of comparable properties appropriately adjusted" standard. Most protests using this methodology win some reduction, because the CAD's mass-appraisal models will frequently produce non-uniform results in subdivisions where individual property features vary.

Limitations and counter-arguments the CAD will raise

The CAD is not obligated to roll over. Expect them to raise one or more of these:

"Your comps are not appropriately adjusted"

The most common challenge. The CAD will point to specific features — a less-renovated kitchen, an older HVAC system, a smaller lot — that they argue make your property different from the comps. Counter: the §41.43(b)(3) standard doesn't require identical properties, only "reasonably comparable" ones with appropriate adjustments. Acknowledge any real differences and adjust the median accordingly, but don't concede the entire argument.

"Your comps are too few"

If you bring three comps, the CAD may argue that isn't a "reasonable number." Counter: use 7–12 comps when possible. If the subdivision is small and only 5 comps exist within your filters, document that fact explicitly — "the entire eligible comparable set is 5 properties; here they are."

"You're cherry-picking"

The CAD may compare your comp set to the full set and argue you excluded properties that would raise the median. Counter: articulate your filter criteria in writing. "I included every property in my subdivision with square footage within ±25% of mine, year built within ±10 years, single-family residential class, no pool. That produced this set of 9 properties." Defensible criteria beat hand-picked comps.

"We have evidence the comps are over-appraised, not the subject under-appraised"

Occasionally the CAD will argue that your subject is correctly appraised and the comparable properties are mistakenly under-appraised. Counter: the §41.43(b)(3) standard is symmetrical — it doesn't require you to prove the comparables are correctly appraised, only that they exist as evidence of the median. If the CAD believes the comparables are under-appraised, they should re-appraise them; that's not your problem.

Commercial and high-value variant

The unequal-appraisal ground applies to commercial and industrial properties too, though the math is more involved. For commercial properties, the comparable-properties analysis usually requires:

• More sophisticated adjustments (income/expense ratios, capitalization-rate comparisons, vacancy-rate normalization)
• Larger comp universes pulled from regional or statewide sets, not just one subdivision
• Often, a professional appraisal or property tax consultant to build the case

For commercial properties appraised at $62.9 million or more in counties with population 1.2 million or more, Form 50-132 Section 7 allows a request for a Special Panel with members having relevant business experience. The substantive §41.43(b)(3) standard is the same; the procedural protections are stronger.

How Texas compares to other states

Texas is unusual in its statutory commitment to the unequal-appraisal standard. Most other states use a market-value-only approach: the taxpayer argues the appraised value exceeds market value, and the assessor defends the model. Examples:

State	Approach	Public sale data?
Texas	Market value + unequal appraisal (§41.43(b)(3))	No — non-disclosure state
California	Acquisition-value (Prop 13)	Yes
Florida	Market value with "Save Our Homes" 3% annual cap	Yes
New York	Market value (multiple subclasses)	Yes
Illinois	Equalization-based fair market value	Yes

The combination of (a) non-disclosure of sale prices and (b) a statutory unequal-appraisal protest ground is what makes Texas's protest process so distinctive. Homeowners in disclosure states (California, Florida) have public sale data to argue market-value protests but no statutory equity standard. Homeowners in Texas have the opposite — no public sale data but a powerful equity argument.

If you've previously protested property taxes in another state, do not assume the Texas process maps onto your prior experience. The §41.43(b)(3) ground is the most distinctive feature of Texas property tax law from a homeowner's perspective, and the protest playbook here is built around it.

FAQ

What is unequal appraisal in Texas?

Unequal appraisal is a protest ground in Texas Tax Code §41.43(b)(3) allowing a homeowner to argue their property's appraised value should be reduced to the median appraised value of comparable properties, appropriately adjusted. It is independent of market-value arguments and rests on the Texas Constitution's requirement of equal and uniform taxation.

Is unequal appraisal the same as fair market value?

No. Fair market value asks what a property would sell for in an arm's-length transaction. Unequal appraisal asks whether the property's appraised value exceeds the median of comparable properties' appraised values. They are independent legal standards under Texas Tax Code §§41.41(a)(1) and 41.41(a)(2).

How many comparable properties do I need to prove unequal appraisal?

The statute says "a reasonable number." In practice, 5–10 comparable properties is the typical sweet spot. Three is on the low end and sometimes challenged; 30 is overkill. Use enough that the median is statistically meaningful but not so many that comp quality dilutes.

Does §41.43(b)(3) apply to non-homestead properties?

Yes. The unequal-appraisal protest ground applies to all real and personal property under the jurisdiction of a Texas appraisal district. Homestead and non-homestead, residential and commercial. The procedural protections and substantive standard are the same.

Can I argue both unequal appraisal and excessive market value at the same hearing?

Yes. The two grounds are independent and you can prevail on either. Most successful protests check both boxes on Form 50-132 (the combined "Incorrect appraised (market) value and/or value is unequal compared with other properties" checkbox preserves both) and lead with whichever argument has stronger evidence.

What if the appraisal district's evidence shows my property is appraised below market value?

This is interesting. §41.43(b)(3) does not require you to prove your appraised value exceeds market value — only that it exceeds the median of comparable properties. Texas courts have generally held that a homeowner can win an unequal-appraisal protest even when the appraised value is below market value, because the constitutional and statutory standards are about equity, not absolute value. The CAD will sometimes argue the contrary; settled case law generally favors the homeowner.

Can my property tax protest firm use §41.43(b)(3) for me?

Yes, and most of them do. The contingency-fee firms (O'Connor & Associates, Texas Tax Protest, Texas ProTax, Five Stone) build their entire residential protest practice on §41.43(b)(3) arguments. The flat-fee tech firms (Ownwell, Gill Denson) do the same. You can also do it yourself — see our DIY vs hiring a firm comparison and Form 50-132 walkthrough.

Sources and references