Some argue you get better quality control. 

You get the deed, immediately control the property and collect the rents.

If you have the proper tools in place to where you can feel comfortable making a purchase knowing it will one day be in someone else's control, I'd go for it.

Hi Ahmed, to clarify: So, if a investor has an equitable title to the property, do they have the rights to use/sell/control the property?

Yes, it panned out well for you but you had to rely 100% on the market, being 100% out of your control.

Try to stay in control of everything that happens.  

There is no real reason for me to own it but since I have a vested interest in my property it would be nice to have some control over what is next door.My other option is to let him bulldoze and buy it after.

You do relinquish a lot of control to the fund managers but I like the idea of spreading out the risk among multiple properties and the upside of equity vs. debt investing. 

If the park currently provides water as part of rent, this is a tough cost to keep control of.  

With a proven track record maybe the investor will loosen up on terms or do multiple investments concurrently with you.Until you have enough investable capital accumulated, it will be a challenge controlling the terms of any investor or lender.If the deal you have in your sights is phenomenal (like it could appraise for way over your purchase price), you may have luck finding a HML to fund acquisition + rehab but the terms will likely be ridiculous.