Question Details

Walter Chodor, Home Seller in 60608

Is it better to sell property with shacks on it(2)or raze it and then sell the property?

Asked by Walter Chodor, 60608 Mon Jul 9, 2007

4 lots 2 blocks from a lake

Help the community by answering this question:


You could offer to raze the shacks if desired. I have seen buyers use the shacks for storage while constructing a new home when the lot allows for it.
0 votes Thank Flag Link Mon Jul 9, 2007
If the shacks have occupancy permits I would keep them. It they don't, tear them down.
If they are occupancy permits, then a buyer will have a much easier time obtaining financing.
Without them, the listing would be for vacant land, and there are tighter restrictions and fewer lenders that will lend on vacant land.
Good luck!
0 votes Thank Flag Link Mon Jul 9, 2007
Keith Sorem, Real Estate Pro in Glendale, CA
In the Daytona Beach, FL area, it's best to raze the property if the "shacks" need to be torn down anyway. It will increase the value of the land and/or it's appeal to buyers, since they won't have to incur those costs.
0 votes Thank Flag Link Mon Jul 9, 2007
In Bellevue it's usually not good to be the first one to do it. Some neighborhoods lend themselves to tear downs, and some don't. Also, the purchase price has to be pretty close to lot value. Look at the County records and make sure the improvement percentage vs. lot assessment is down to 5% or less before you consider a tear down. Or look for others nearby that have done it and look at what they paid for the lot before they put the new home on it.
0 votes Thank Flag Link Mon Jul 9, 2007
I would need more information to really respond to this question accurately. One thing that would be important to know is whether or not the "shacks" are habitable or if you literally mean they are shacks.

A large number of the investors I work with look for properties with "junky" but habitable structures so that they can rent them or write off the property as a second home. (Speak with a tax professional for details)

Also, vacant land is tougher to finance than property with homes.

I recently was involved in a transaction with a property that had a shabby home on it and when the final negotiation came through it was for the price of the property minus the cost of removing the structure.

Now, if you meant that there are literally two shacks on it then that's a different story.
0 votes Thank Flag Link Mon Jul 9, 2007
I would have to say that this would depend upon you having the equipment and manpower available to do the job for less than the general public. If a developer or contractor want to buy the land and can remove them inexpensively, they would prefer this to paying more for the land that you cleared.
0 votes Thank Flag Link Mon Jul 9, 2007
Search Advice
Ask our community a question
Email me when…

Learn more

Copyright © 2015 Trulia, Inc. All rights reserved.   |  
Have a question? Visit our Help Center to find the answer