i'm more less in the same position. but as far as i read here on architect, some managed to register as an architect in Europe with a post-professional graduate degree. 

Why bother with an unaccredited degree in the first place? Sounds like a giant waste of time and money. Most places required accreditation to maintain a minimum level of competence, I would not want unaccredited people practising in my backyard.

Non Syquitur, thanka for an answer. Is accreditation of an employee important for employers or for clients?
The problem is that many universities have non-accredited programs for those who hold a 5 year degree in architecture already. Some Us would not accept a MArch I application because the prospective student is already "over-educated" for that degree.

Over-educated with a non-accredited degree? I don't think so and besides that, many American universities accept students into their accredited master's programmes regardless of their undergraduate degrees, as long as you have the portfolio and basic prerequisites.

Accreditation is essential for professional licensing and intern-architect development. It's not necessary for employment but there are reasons why some degrees are unaccredited and I trust that that would be visible in a job applicant's portfolio.

We are speaking about international applicants. It is possible for a PhD holder with 10 years of academic history in architecture not to hold a NAAB accredited degree. Two of my friends were not accepted to pre-professional programs and were said by schools to be "over-educated". And no, they are not incompetent and both were accepted to other schools. 

There are unaccredited two years grad or post-grad programs in such prominent universities as MIT, Harvard, Yale and others. They definitely look amazing in the CV and students usually do quite a good job there that ascend into their portfolios. If not for the accreditation, I would apply to those post-grad programs without a doubt, for example, to UCLA Suprastudio. Not sure, though, what to do(

It seems that it is possible to get licensed without holding an accredited degree: https://www.eesa-naab.org/home.aspx I don't know the details, but at least there are opportunities.

Non-accredited degrees are a waste of time if you want to practice and become licensed. I do not know what region you originate from, but if you or anyone else want to pursue licensing in North-America, your education must be verified. Holding a phd is no automatic sign of competence either and I've had many international colleagues while I was in grad school. They all had degrees from "prominent" yet foreign institutions and all were asked to return to undergrad to complete basic level courses.

Why is that? because standards vary and what one country considers adequate, another may scoff at, hence the requirement for accreditation or, as you link above, a method to evaluate your existing education in accordance with current accreditation standards.

Yes you can acquire a license in a number of US states without an accredited degree. However you will find it difficult, and costly, to acquire an NCARB certificate without one.

Thank you for advice! I've researched more and decided to apply for accredited programs only since many of them haves opportunities for an advanced placement for people with previous background in architecture.

Sorry for 2 posts in a raw, but I have some additional information that might be interesting for those who have the same problem.
I've written to Harvard admission office about the issue and got an answer:

" The MArch II program is for applicants who have the equivalent of the 5-6 year bachelor of architecture and can practice as an architect in his/her country. Applicants who qualify to apply to the MArch II program cannot apply to MArch I. "