General Real Estate Investing
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback
Updated 2 months ago, 09/20/2024
Philadelphia rowhome stucco water intrusion - possible negligence by city
I recently bought a 100-year-old rowhome in Philadelphia as part of an estate sale. My original goal was to fix and rent. It's detached - the city knocked down the home on one side in 2018 and a private individual knocked down the home on the other side in 2022. This is very common in Philly as there’s a lot of older homes and the city is working to gentrify certain neighborhoods. As far as I know, there are no plans to build on either lot any time soon.
At the start of the renovation, we replaced the roof. Later, we stripped off the old patterned wallpaper inside the house and saw that the walls were covered in water stains. My GC primed and painted over them a few times thinking they were just old, stubborn stains that needed extra product, but they kept coming back after each rainfall.
I hired a water intrusion detection company to help me pinpoint the problem - they said the new roof seemed solid and that based on infrared and temperature readings, the moisture is coming in from the partition walls. I then got assessments from several masonry contractors who all said the same thing. They also said they see this problem ALL the time in Philly… when the city or a private individual knocks down a rowhome, they are responsible for treating the exposed partition wall of the next door property to protect it from the elements. Apparently they should be brick pointing with lime mortar, but instead, they said the city will just plaster over the historical materials (original brick and lime mortar) with Portland cement because it's cheaper, faster and easier than working with more delicate, temperature sensitive lime mortar. Several of the masonry contractors said they can’t believe the city gets away with this because it's a known issue that these materials don't mix and it will eventually cause problems like water intrusion that can be very costly for the owner to fix.
I’ve gotten quotes ranging from $6,500-$12k to repair and waterproof the exterior walls, plus there's the added cost of repairing and repainting the inside walls. I contacted the city and they are telling me it's "been too long" since they plastered the wall on their side (2018) so it's basically not their problem. I haven’t contacted the private individual yet about the wall on their side. I’m now way over budget on this project and have now listed the property for sale while I also work on the repairs.
I’m considering hiring a lawyer to try and recover the cost of the repairs and potentially my extended holding costs. Has anyone else come across this issue and if so, how did you remedy it? Any other tips, recommendations, etc are most welcome. (Also, if anyone is interested in acquiring a Brewerytown rowhome, hit me up! It's competitively priced and the section 8 rent - if you choose to go that route - is very strong.) Thanks, all!
@Elizabeth Rose
Have you contacted your insurance company? That is where I would start. To hire an attorney to go after the city will cost you 10 times the amount that you’re owed.
If that is now a private residence, you could go after them, but again the best case would be for insurance to handle this
- Chris Seveney
Quote from @Chris Seveney:
@Elizabeth Rose
Have you contacted your insurance company? That is where I would start. To hire an attorney to go after the city will cost you 10 times the amount that you’re owed.
If that is now a private residence, you could go after them, but again the best case would be for insurance to handle this
@Chris Seveney thanks for the suggestion. I haven't gone to my insurance company yet. I'm concerned about the impact that filing a claim would have on my insurance score and premiums for this property and other rentals. What's your experience been with this? Is there a specific dollar amount threshold under which you'll just pay for a repair yourself vs. going through insurance?
Zero chance of recouping from the city.
1) Municipalities don't care. Getting them to pony up even when they are at fault is impossible.
2) This condition existed when you purchased. You have no damages, though the previous owner at the time of demo may have had damages.
3) Statute of limitation, if applicable, expires on nearly everything on civil matters at 3 years.
- Russell Brazil
- [email protected]
- (301) 893-4635
- Podcast Guest on Show #192
I have rentals in Delaware County, just outside Philadelphia. A tenant accidentally started a fire that resulted in an insurance claim of around $41,000. Insurance paid it and my premium went up about $50 for a couple years. The tenant was destitute and the insurance company could not recover anything from them.
I look at insurance as you have it for a reason. I set my deductibles at 5% as i only intend to use insurance for large losses. I consider this a large loss.You may find there is mold in there too. My recommendation is to talk with your insurance company to see if it would be covered and what impact there might be to you. You didn't cause the problem which is a major factor in the premium impact. There is no cost for the conversation though they may require you to fix it to stay insured even if you don't file a claim.
I can assure you the city demolished a building because of make safe violations that were ignored, not because of a desire to force gentrification. This sounds like a pre-existing defect so you will have to review your insurance policy but I am guessing there will be an exclusion.
In PA the statute of limitations for construction defects is 12 years but I’m not sure how strong of a case you have here. You point to contractors suggesting specific mortar materials being used but can you identify in the building code a requirement that these recommended mortar materials are utilized? I am not personally familiar with this which is why I ask. If you can’t identify this in the building code it only weakens your case.
Ultimately this is a risk associated with purchasing a property where both adjacent buildings have been demolished. It’s why structures adjacent to vacant parcels due to demolition historically trade at significant discounts (not only because of the issue you’re grappling with but also the risks associated with underpinning and the construction process if and when the adjacent properties are redeveloped). Additional contingencies should be added to the budget and discounted valuations should be applied in such scenarios.
Quote from @Stuart Udis:
I can assure you the city demolished a building because of make safe violations that were ignored, not because of a desire to force gentrification. This sounds like a pre-existing defect so you will have to review your insurance policy but I am guessing there will be an exclusion.
In PA the statute of limitations for construction defects is 12 years but I’m not sure how strong of a case you have here. You point to contractors suggesting specific mortar materials being used but can you identify in the building code a requirement that these recommended mortar materials are utilized? I am not personally familiar with this which is why I ask. If you can’t identify this in the building code it only weakens your case.
Ultimately this is a risk associated with purchasing a property where both adjacent buildings have been demolished. It’s why structures adjacent to vacant parcels due to demolition historically trade at significant discounts (not only because of the issue you’re grappling with but also the risks associated with underpinning and the construction process if and when the adjacent properties are redeveloped). Additional contingencies should be added to the budget and discounted valuations should be applied in such scenarios.
The underpinning point here is crucial. I have seen many of these builds have crumbling foundations from poor demolition efforts.
Usually many buildings "knocked" down doesn't really speak highly of the area.
Im sure going after the city would really only be effective in a civil class action law suit where there is enough people and $$$ on board.
Over a 6-12k fix, and battling the city alone you'll spend more money and time IMO.
The exposed walls certainly need to be properly insulated and sealed. Hopefully someone come to build next door soon and you can split the expense...
- Alan Asriants
- [email protected]
- 267-767-0111
Quote from @Alan Asriants:
Quote from @Stuart Udis:
I can assure you the city demolished a building because of make safe violations that were ignored, not because of a desire to force gentrification. This sounds like a pre-existing defect so you will have to review your insurance policy but I am guessing there will be an exclusion.
In PA the statute of limitations for construction defects is 12 years but I’m not sure how strong of a case you have here. You point to contractors suggesting specific mortar materials being used but can you identify in the building code a requirement that these recommended mortar materials are utilized? I am not personally familiar with this which is why I ask. If you can’t identify this in the building code it only weakens your case.
Ultimately this is a risk associated with purchasing a property where both adjacent buildings have been demolished. It’s why structures adjacent to vacant parcels due to demolition historically trade at significant discounts (not only because of the issue you’re grappling with but also the risks associated with underpinning and the construction process if and when the adjacent properties are redeveloped). Additional contingencies should be added to the budget and discounted valuations should be applied in such scenarios.
The underpinning point here is crucial. I have seen many of these builds have crumbling foundations from poor demolition efforts.
Usually many buildings "knocked" down doesn't really speak highly of the area.
Im sure going after the city would really only be effective in a civil class action law suit where there is enough people and $$$ on board.
Over a 6-12k fix, and battling the city alone you'll spend more money and time IMO.
The exposed walls certainly need to be properly insulated and sealed. Hopefully someone come to build next door soon and you can split the expense...
@Alan Asriants Thanks for the feedback! As a Philly agent, would you advise your clients against buying such properties? The feedback I received when considering buying it was that the empty lots on either side was a plus as there's lots of new construction in the area and the value would go up once new homes are built around it. But knowing what I know now, I wouldn't buy a property like this again.
Quote from @Russell Brazil:
Zero chance of recouping from the city.
1) Municipalities don't care. Getting them to pony up even when they are at fault is impossible.
2) This condition existed when you purchased. You have no damages, though the previous owner at the time of demo may have had damages.
3) Statute of limitation, if applicable, expires on nearly everything on civil matters at 3 years.
@Russell Brazil I was also thinking only the previous owner may have a claim for any damages. Thanks for the feedback here.
Quote from @Stuart Udis:
I can assure you the city demolished a building because of make safe violations that were ignored, not because of a desire to force gentrification. This sounds like a pre-existing defect so you will have to review your insurance policy but I am guessing there will be an exclusion.
In PA the statute of limitations for construction defects is 12 years but I’m not sure how strong of a case you have here. You point to contractors suggesting specific mortar materials being used but can you identify in the building code a requirement that these recommended mortar materials are utilized? I am not personally familiar with this which is why I ask. If you can’t identify this in the building code it only weakens your case.
Ultimately this is a risk associated with purchasing a property where both adjacent buildings have been demolished. It’s why structures adjacent to vacant parcels due to demolition historically trade at significant discounts (not only because of the issue you’re grappling with but also the risks associated with underpinning and the construction process if and when the adjacent properties are redeveloped). Additional contingencies should be added to the budget and discounted valuations should be applied in such scenarios.
Thanks @Stuart Udis, all of this makes sense. I am definitely learning a lot from this deal, that's for sure! Thanks for the feedback.
@Elizabeth Rose you have received great advice and insights here from other local Philly people. Bottomline is that you are unlikely to "win" a suit against the city and even if you did, the legal costs would be very high. Those exposed walls were not built to be exposed so I would suggest talking to a variety of experts to hear them out on the options. There are some really good contractors who can help you - and there are some who smell inexperience a mile away and take advantage.
#1 Market Trends & Data Contributor
Quote from @Chris Seveney:
@Elizabeth Rose
Have you contacted your insurance company? That is where I would start. To hire an attorney to go after the city will cost you 10 times the amount that you’re owed.
If that is now a private residence, you could go after them, but again the best case would be for insurance to handle this
I would be surprised even if the insurance company would allow such a claim. They could say this is an existing problem.
#1 Market Trends & Data Contributor
Quote from @Sheryl Sitman:
@Elizabeth Rose you have received great advice and insights here from other local Philly people. Bottomline is that you are unlikely to "win" a suit against the city and even if you did, the legal costs would be very high. Those exposed walls were not built to be exposed so I would suggest talking to a variety of experts to hear them out on the options. There are some really good contractors who can help you - and there are some who smell inexperience a mile away and take advantage.
Ask the neighbour using that app in neighbourhood dot com to find out if one has a solution or cheaper alternative to fix. I thought before this was going to cost like 20k but 6k does still make sense.
Quote from @Elizabeth Rose:
Quote from @Alan Asriants:
Quote from @Stuart Udis:
I can assure you the city demolished a building because of make safe violations that were ignored, not because of a desire to force gentrification. This sounds like a pre-existing defect so you will have to review your insurance policy but I am guessing there will be an exclusion.
In PA the statute of limitations for construction defects is 12 years but I’m not sure how strong of a case you have here. You point to contractors suggesting specific mortar materials being used but can you identify in the building code a requirement that these recommended mortar materials are utilized? I am not personally familiar with this which is why I ask. If you can’t identify this in the building code it only weakens your case.
Ultimately this is a risk associated with purchasing a property where both adjacent buildings have been demolished. It’s why structures adjacent to vacant parcels due to demolition historically trade at significant discounts (not only because of the issue you’re grappling with but also the risks associated with underpinning and the construction process if and when the adjacent properties are redeveloped). Additional contingencies should be added to the budget and discounted valuations should be applied in such scenarios.
The underpinning point here is crucial. I have seen many of these builds have crumbling foundations from poor demolition efforts.
Usually many buildings "knocked" down doesn't really speak highly of the area.
Im sure going after the city would really only be effective in a civil class action law suit where there is enough people and $$$ on board.
Over a 6-12k fix, and battling the city alone you'll spend more money and time IMO.
The exposed walls certainly need to be properly insulated and sealed. Hopefully someone come to build next door soon and you can split the expense...
@Alan Asriants Thanks for the feedback! As a Philly agent, would you advise your clients against buying such properties? The feedback I received when considering buying it was that the empty lots on either side was a plus as there's lots of new construction in the area and the value would go up once new homes are built around it. But knowing what I know now, I wouldn't buy a property like this again.
You got it!
I always look at location first, then I analyze the property itself.
Usually If there is one row home up and the rest are knocked over and there is no sign of improvement, then I wouldn't bank on it or recommend it.
Now if the entire block is well established in a super solid area and it just so happens to be this situation then I would move on to my next criteria - the property itself.
I would first advise the client to look into the foundation of the structure and then understand that the shared walls are not meant to be exposed.
if the property passes the location test, then i would move to structural test, then to water mitigation test.
It is likely tho that there will need to be some sort of reinforcing done on the structure regardless of its current condition. It is unfortunately not made out of reinforced poured concrete and instead stone and mortar that could become loose from too much ground movement. The property would have to be discounted compared to its comps.
Hope this helps!
- Alan Asriants
- [email protected]
- 267-767-0111
I work for a GC and in his opinion, a standalone row home that previously was part of a row should, in general, not ever be considered for purchase. Row homes are meant to stabilize each other. They provide each other structural integrity. Over time, a standalone row will start to lean and you will see evidence of that on the inside. If considering a purchase, a structural engineer should be the first person to call.