Ground-up in a zone versus buying a standing building and rehabbing it, from the seat where you can't fix either one

Question

I run small multifamily and I know exactly what a rehab budget does when the walls open up. Now I have a gain from selling a building and I'm looking at funds instead of doing it myself, which puts me in a seat where I can't walk the site and I can't fire the contractor.

The two strategies in front of me. One fund is doing ground-up, 60 to 90 units per site, three sites, all in tracts they expect to remain designated after the January 2027 change. The other is acquiring standing older apartment stock inside zones and meeting the substantial improvement requirement through heavy renovation, which their counsel has opined on and which is exactly the kind of question that belongs with your own tax professional rather than mine.

Ground-up: known scope, priced from drawings, no surprises behind plaster. Also eighteen to twenty-four months of no revenue, full exposure to material and labor pricing, and entitlement risk if anything in the approval path slips.

Rehab: revenue can start earlier if it's phased, basis is lower, and the buildings already exist so there's no entitlement fight. Also the improvement spend has to hit a threshold on a schedule, and every renovation I've personally run went over on scope. Doing that under a compliance deadline with somebody else's timeline is the part that worries me.

From the passive seat you're picking which of the two failure modes you're willing to be told about after the fact.

mikeoconnell7 · Answer

The phrase that stopped me in your post is "under a compliance deadline." A rehab that runs long is a normal bad quarter in most contexts. In this one it can put a test at risk, and a passive investor finds out from a letter. Ground-up has a schedule too, but a delayed lease-up doesn't carry the same kind of consequence. That asymmetry would push me toward ground-up even though the numbers on rehab look friendlier at entry.

omar_haddad · Answer

Ask me about scope creep and I'll tell you the drawings lie on both. Ground-up gets you a clean scope and then the site conditions show up, bad soils, a utility that isn't where the survey says, an inspector with opinions. I've had ground-up jobs blow through contingency harder than gut rehabs. What actually separates them for a passive investor is whether the sponsor has a guaranteed maximum price contract with a real general contractor and a bonded schedule, or a cost-plus arrangement with a builder they own half of. That's on page forty of the document and it tells you more than the strategy label does. cairn, check who the contractor is related to before you decide which failure mode you're picking.

Ground-up in a zone versus buying a standing building and rehabbing it, from the seat where you can't fix either one

2 replies