@Troy Sheets Well, the cottage is permitted as an accessory structure, not a dwelling.

Beyond that, it's incredibly dated and has a tile stage where the dining room should be, so not real appealing to much of the market.We had to revise our estimate because the city won't allow us to build an accessory dwelling unit.  

Bathroom accessories.

Not only is this great news for the local economy, but also for those trying to buy home furnishings and accessories at low prices (think home stagers, first time home buyers, expanding families, and simply those looking for good design and function at low prices).

And if you aren't thinking of improved habitable system (technology) comparisons like toilet vs outhouse or a swamp cooler vs frigid air (both which are habitable but we are still willing to live with either) then you're comparing accessories.

I imagine for a distressed property I'd be looking at a "full 203K" and I read some real nightmare stories.Question #2 is whether anyone has ever rehabbed a SFR to include a legal accessory dwelling unit (In-Law- Apartment) in this area?

I just did a black four-piece kitchen for just at $1,500, which included tax and all of the accessories that must be purchased with the appliance for Lowes to install it.

I am taking him to Home Depot and asking him to help me make decisions on what flooring, paint, bathroom accessories, etc. to buy.  

I posted my situation in a general forum, but given that there are nuances in my decision specific to the SF market (and regulations) I thought I'd post here too: https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/88/topics/451...The in-law cottage is an accessory unit, which I believe prevents a rent control situation, but expert thoughts welcome!

Years back, I found it more economical for me to buy a house full of mid-range furniture and accessories (we have less than $15K invested) and use it flip after flip.