If you're 90% done that should be feasible. 

It is disappointing, but we purchased with current rents making a solid return and costs have not inflated (other than utilities, which we pass along to the tenants), so it is still financially feasible.  

Lastly, it makes pulling equity out of the building more feasible (and if you're letting your equity just sit in buildings, then you're not taking advantage of the #1 reason to invest in real estate in the first place....Leverage).

I don't know of a site or if that would even be feasible.

Most folks seem to think that the purchase isn't feasible, but why lease panels for that long only to own nothing.  

@Ralph Pena - if the oil boiler system is relatively new, say 5 years old or less, then the boiler itself still has lots of remaining useful life; that makes it a good candidate for a regun and re gunning is way less expensive than replacement, so this contributes to making it economically feasible.  

My prelimary market research has leads me to believe that there are few MFHs in my area on the MLS that are feasible under the 50% rule.

Hi Patrick,Yes, if I were in the area I could keep it in house and save some money but seeing as I am currently no where near my properties it is not a feasible feat. 

FHA allowed her to then rent that one out, and buy another one with FHA financing, because her new job was far enough away that commuting was not feasible.  

I read all these rules of thumb and realize they do not apply at all for California real estate (specifically Greater Los Angeles).I find it frustrating that it seems the general opinion is to invest in your home state first and then branch out across borders however with the overinflation of real estate prices in my area I don't see it feasible to pay such a great deal of money for so little of a property/no cash flow especially since its not my objective to speculate on appreciation.So far from my reading and learning I have decided I would like to focus on SFR/Multi-family.