In my county, they do not sell at discounted interest rates to big companies as they realized they were losing money because there are plenty of local buyers willing to buy.  

If he loses this deal he now has to disclose these items.

*Only one of the units was vacant, so we haven't seen the bottom unit yet - one has to be open to imagining the possibilities that exist, sight unseen.  

When you lose control of who you rent to this business will go to hell.

Don't lose sleep over this...don't sell...Revise the lease agreement to state something like "lessee (Name) has 'first right of refusal to purchase'" ....something like that. 

The end result is, I didn't lose money in a bad situation but a hard lesson: If it is too far for me to want to spend my energy and time on, it isn't for me.

I always like to use the following example: "You can buy the best building that is fully occupied on 5th Avenue in NYC or on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills but if you make a bet on the wrong person and they run it into the ground then ultimately you will lose your building to the bank and it didn't matter that it was the best building when it was acquired".

This makes your strategy a 90% likelihood of losing money.

I asked if it was against her or the property and she said "The impediment is to title insurance ONLY" If she loses this suit does this mean a lien can be put on the property?

If not you might lose all your profit in the deal.