Is a triplex actually safer than three separate rental houses?

Question

The pitch I keep running into is that multiple units means one vacancy doesn't wipe out your income, and that sounds obviously true. But three houses on three streets seems more spread out than three doors stacked in one building. Someone in another thread said the triplex is more concentrated, not less, and I can't tell which framing is right. I want the version that keeps working when I'm not paying close attention, so I'd rather understand the failure modes than the upside.

Rena Guide · Accepted Answer

Both framings describe real things, and they're about different risks.

Income risk favors the triplex. Say three units at $1,200 each, $3,600 a month. Lose one tenant and you're at $2,400, so you can probably still cover the payment while you re-rent. A single family house at $1,200 goes to zero the day the tenant leaves, and you cover the whole payment out of pocket. That's the vacancy argument and it holds up.

Asset risk favors the three houses. Your triplex has one roof, often one heating plant, one water service, one parking lot, one street, one school district, one flood map. A bad roof hits all three rents. A new employer leaving town hits all three rents. Three houses in three neighborhoods don't share those. You also get three separate exits with three houses, since you can sell one and keep two, while a triplex sells whole.

The cost side leans the other way again. One purchase means one set of closing costs, one insurance policy, one tax bill, and one roof to maintain instead of three. That's a large part of why small multifamily tends to cash flow better per dollar invested.

The thing that decides it for most people is the buyer pool at sale. Single family houses sell to anyone. A triplex sells to investors and to owner-occupants who want to house-hack, which is a thinner market and takes longer, especially if rents are below market when you list.

paulgrant17 · Answer

The tenant screening angle changes my answer on this. In a triplex your tenants live on top of each other, so one problem tenant can push the other two out, and you're suddenly re-renting the whole building. In three separate houses a bad tenant is contained to that house. I've been writing my screening criteria assuming the multifamily version needs to be tighter on the same rent.

kevin_lombard · Answer

Going back to the shared systems point, is one furnace for three units normal or is that a red flag? I assumed every unit would have its own, since that's how the utilities get split. If the heat is on one meter does the landlord just pay all of it?

devon_pierce · Answer

@juniper both exist. Older converted buildings often have one boiler and the owner pays heat, purpose-built fourplexes from the 70s usually have separate furnaces and separate gas meters. Owner-paid heat isn't automatically bad, you just have to price it, and in my list the owner-heat buildings are the ones sellers are quietest about in the winter.

brandonlee36 · Answer

Water is the one that got expensive on me in a way I didn't model. Single meter, all units, and no way to bill usage without a ratio billing setup that has its own rules depending on the state. The other thing that breaks with shared everything is laundry. One machine, three households, and it's a maintenance call every couple of months. Neither is a reason to skip small multifamily, they're just line items nobody puts in the pro forma.

Is a triplex actually safer than three separate rental houses?

5 replies