Why not ACV instead of RCV homeowner's insurance?

[Alfred Litton]

Just a question to elicit opinions.  If as an investor, I would NOT choose to rebuild if something catastrophic (tornado, fire, etc) happened to one of my properties, why not carry ACV instead of RCV insurance.  If my $90K home were destroyed except for the lot, why wouldn't I insure for the simple value of the home ($90K) instead of to rebuild it (at $160K) when I could go out and find another $90K home and sell the lot? If I would never want to rebuild my damaged home and can get ACV at half the price of RCV, why not just choose the less expensive insurance?  Why insure to rebuild when you wouldn't rebuild?  Am I missing something??

Also, will banks always insist on RCV or do any allow you to get ACV with a conventional mortgage?  Thanks.