After leasing the property for at least 6 months I should be able to apply for a conventional loan and have to put little (if any) additional money into the deal due to the forced appreciation.To me, this solution would be similar to taking the property subject to but without the owner having to give up the deed to the property.

One solution is to outlaw it altogether, that would be too extreme as there are dealers who aren't really messing up, but still can't reasonably required to go to some one year class and then be required to work in finance for 3 years before they could do a SF deal, that's just still to extreme.

That's a clean ~20k of profit for me for just being able to take action and find a solution that works for everyone all-around!

I have no real solution other than to make sure your properties are secure.

Once you're in that situation though, I'm almost positive you will find a solution, as that's how it just works.

Is the only solution here to lower both sides down to $475 or how can I justify renting one side for $475 and the other for $525.

There is plenty of yard space for at least eight more parking spaces and plenty of off street parking.However, I was told that a variance would not address the zoning issue.I agree with your solution of putting up double doors, there is already a common area available.

Other than that, any solution would involve pretending to be someone other than the owner, which is generally frowned upon.I agree that transfer tax @ 4% of fair market value is ridiculous.

Lease the place.You need to speak to your attorney, there are other ways but your credit and the due on sale will always be a concern, of sorts, until that loan is paid off.Best solution, find a willing and able buyer.BTW, Welcome to BP!

My wife is a SAHM, but we have two small children, so she can't reliably answer the phone.