You can then put certain provisions in the agreement where that money (or part of it at least) gets released to you if you have problems with getting the tenant out or if the unit is unreasonably damaged.Of course, everyone has to agree to this, including your lender (if you have one).

If they are opting out, or are going to request unreasonable compensation, we dont want to know the specifics so we arnt forced to disclose.

I've been advising my clients against buying rentals in those areas fora year as the acquisition costs seemed to get unreasonably high for the amount of work that needed to go in.I also spoke to a builder about those hot areas the other day and there is yet another split in those marketplaces.

Is it unreasonable to require an application on the front end? 

@Jerry Brecko This is so because the seller's title company created the issue and it's their mess to fix OR they previously insured over it so they are already on the hook.If the title commitment had no unreasonable exceptions and the deal was winner for me, I would go with the seller's title company.

If you have a 50 year old applicant that had six previous landlords spanning 30 years it is unreasonable to expect references from all those landlords.

At this point the mediator is not happy because she knows the tenant is unreasonable and I have all my ducks in a line.  

$750 cashflow does not seem unreasonable to me at all for our area and your strategy.

I think it's quite arguable that accommodating an entire emotional support petting zoo may begin to fringe on unreasonable.

I dont think you stated how leveraged the asset is, but in most cases its simply not  a reasonable expectation to expect to  cash flow with a super highly leveraged asset.I agree it is unreasonable with a highly leveraged deal to expect cash flow.