Going back and forth with a potential borrower about some proposed construction of a house where a small portion of the property lies in a flood zone, but where the house will be built does not lie in the flood zone. The borrower's surveyor provided us a survey showing where the house will be built...we provided this to our flood determination company, who came back and repeated that a portion of the property remains in a zone. Are we, the bank, still bound by the requirement to obtain flood insurance until a LOMA or LOMC is received? Would an elevation certificate alleviate any of this? Just trying to get my ducks in a row as this battle rages on...Thanks.

Did they specify that it was just 'land' or the propose home. We will get them sometimes that say that but it will specify that the improvements are not located within the SFHA.

Same as Skittles here.

We specified it was for the construction of a home, and even sent the survey which showed where the proposed home was to be located, and they still said it was in a flood zone (the flood determination co), even though the map clearly shows only a sliver of the land in a zone but not the structure...

I guess my real question is this...if a portion of the property is in a flood zone but the actual structure is not, do the Flood laws require us to get flood insurance?

No

Nope only if a structure is in the zone

If your FHD provider will not make a determination based on surveys, aerial photos, etc., regarding building location when a property is partially in a SFHA, I would be finding a new vendor. At the very least, you need to be talking to someone higher up in the food chain.