Title issues tend to be the fact pattern where properties are truly not financeable but that's rarely the case when you see the "cash only" adverts.Ultimately, proceeds will be transferred through a title company and its not as if the buyer is showing up with a duffel bag filled with cash.

This amounts to lost opportunity because if you had purchased RE, at the closing it can start producing return. 5) ADUs detract from the existing structure whether this is privacy, a garage, or just yard space. 6) this is related to number 1, but there are many more buyers looking to purchase homes for their family than there are RE investors looking to purchase small unit count properties.

If you fail to follow the rules, you may open your personal assets to a lawsuit.

I'd love to hear others' opinions on this but I am a fan of making the house as attractive as you can to a potential buyer, even if that adds cost. 

for double closing you would need your funds to buy then sell it to end buyer at premium. there are transactional funding companies that can lend the cash for a fee.

Owner, buyer, and the bank.

So, a BUYER that needs owner financing...what if they just used "non-traditional financing"?

Quote from @Juliet Silver: It may be an investment, the buyer is working on a variety of scenarios now.

I think this was to ensure your buyer can qualify for a loan.

They would also give the buyers more confidence as they're a certified and accredited vendor rather than a mason contractor.