However, one thing I would add is that, when vetting a Sponsor/deal, their acknowledgement and analysis of a "bad" situation is certainly welcome.For example, a sensitivity analysis that supports say a 2-3% return even if occupancy and rents don't come anywhere near projections, is still relatively attractive given potential returns on other investment vehicles.If a Sponsor you're considering is all rainbows and sunshine, I would take that as a red flag and move on.

If your property can't comfortably support all the expenses associated with a flip, you're overpaying.

He also said, for that reason, they stopped buying properties in 2012 and pivoted to developing apartments from the ground up.Arguably, they missed a lot of upside with that rule.

What special rules do I need to follow (e.g. proper number and placement of smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors) that might apply to a rental property that don't apply to a primary residence, or where can I find these rules?

@Tracie Van I never had to make an entry like that but I have found that the QB Online support and the community forum Q&A is fairly resourceful.

As I'm sure you know, property isn't too expensive, it's possible to find a good number of properties in good areas that satisfy the 1% rule or greater, and given how many good universities and companies are in the area, I don't see the city declining anytime soon. 

Because the service animal is not actually living with the person who it is intended for, I was making my comments under the assumption this was more likely a "emotional support animal."

Should I be analyzing deals for owner-occupant homes the same way as a complete rental (~12% cash on cash, 1% rule, etc.)?

Just keep fine tuning your process and shoot for the 70% rule as best you can.

Yeah, stick to 3x the rent rule.