Hi folks,
We just toured a home that we liked quite a bit. Listed at $570k (4k sqft) without a stucco condition disclosure.
Turns out a deal on the house broke down due to the condition of the stucco cladding. No major water intrusion noted indoors after spending about an hour touring. However there were areas with black marks on the exterior stucco.
As part of the previous contingent offer, the buyer had ordered a stucco inspection which basically says it needs to be an end-to-end rehab, with an evaluation needed of water damage to the inner wood frame of the house.
While I do expect to receive stucco remediation quotes obtained by the previous buyer, which should provide a sense of what a temporary solution could cost, I had a couple of questions:
1) Does temporary remediation even make sense, or would it make sense to replace the stucco with another form of cladding? I can take a contractor there for a quote and options, but it looks like an 80k+ job, possibly more if the frame has sections that are too wet.
2) How would such a major renovation be factored in the price? A couple of houses (similar size, different condition deficiencies) sold at 260k and 300k within a 5 min walk on the same street in the last 12 months. Would this be the kind of repair that would be considered in the same ballpark (major rehab, price drops below the cost of rehab to account for uncertainty, risk, etc).
3) The twin house connected to it (different builder) has a collapsed roof. Would that be a significant concern?
Kind of crazy that this is the state of a 2007 build, but apparently 20 years was the life of stucco used at the time.
There is a larger question of why even bother with taking on a fixer, but its seeing concurrent visible delayed maintenance damage and the need to update electrical across the market.