They do this to try and prevent lender hopping to close on the property.

. , it is better to prevent than the chance of a lawsuit.

It is worse if there is a structure that can not be fixed since it either needs to be demolished or prevented from being a worse liability.I think the exceptions to the rule in these properties is a case where someone is putting in effort to generate returns aka "a job". 

The remedy we see a lot is they excavate around the outside and pull the wall back straight and tie it back into solid ground to prevent it from happening again. 

I want to be on the board to prevent or block the knuckleheads that try to ruin it for everyone else.

In most cases, there will be a deed restriction preventing the buyer from selling or using the property as an investment.  

It caused our fearless leaders to enact laws designed to prevent all of that from happening again, most of which won't and a lot of which hurts more than it helps (like the FHA 90 day anti-flip rule--seriously?!).  

If you're planning to do any flipping/rehabbing, those things are what will break you... preventing them (or budgeting accordingly) is big.

Do you only fix things when they are broken, or are you vigilant about providing preventive maintenance.

I was wondering if there is a difference between "assuming a loan" versus taking over a loan in a subject to.If I do a subject to deal where I take over the loan of the current owner and they transfer the deed over to my name, how can I prevent the triggering of the "due-on-sale" clause?