2 Properties on the one title

Hi guys,

I've been a long time lurker, and have finally decided to crawl out of my shell.

I'm looking at a purchasing an investment property in NSW that has 2 houses, and a granny flat all on the single title (making a total of three properties on the single title).

Does this sound legitimate? I know that there is no problem with a property and a granny flat, but what are the rules in relation to more than one 'house' on a single title?


Thanks,
Michael
 
Hi Michael,

There is nothing illegal about it providing the buildings have been approved by council. If you are uncertain you can with council or have your solicitor check as part of their searches.

We have a property with 2 houses on the one title, fully approved by council. It has a further benefit of being sub dividable which means that we can complete the outstanding works and paperwork and sell as two separate dwelling.

Please note that this is general not the case, so again you should confirm with council.


Regards

Andrew
 
Sounds like a great opportunity. I agree with Bargain Hunter - check out the contract before you get too involved in negotiations, it should specify what dwellings/extensions are council approved. If you have a buy and hold philosophy, then it sounds great from a rental perspective. Probably worth checking whether it's in a core area (and therefore subdividable), you may not be ready yet, but later on down the track you may think about subdividing or building townhouses etc
 
Additionallly make sure your financier will carry such a thin at the LVR you want.

Many lenders will only do lower lvrs like 60 7o or 80 % on such animals.

I know LOGICALLY such a thing presents a lower risk of default due to the higher % rtn.

However the lender sees such a property as having a separate and additonal risk and that is a limited resale market.

ta
rolf
 
Additionallly make sure your financier will carry such a thin at the LVR you want.

Many lenders will only do lower lvrs like 60 7o or 80 % on such animals.

I know LOGICALLY such a thing presents a lower risk of default due to the higher % rtn.

However the lender sees such a property as having a separate and additonal risk and that is a limited resale market.

ta
rolf

Agree, .... we have just secured a loan to add a second dwelling as part of a dual occupancy site we own.

We had to go 60% LVR, .... even so the deal still stacked up and as Rolf has said. We improved rent return (8%) and improve the equity (approx $200k), but the banks are very conservative at the moment.

Mystery
 
We found St George was prepared to look at ours where other banks were useless, they couldn't understand the process and so refused on a technicality rather than the LVR.
 
Sounds like a great opportunity. I agree with Bargain Hunter - check out the contract before you get too involved in negotiations, it should specify what dwellings/extensions are council approved. If you have a buy and hold philosophy, then it sounds great from a rental perspective. Probably worth checking whether it's in a core area (and therefore subdividable), you may not be ready yet, but later on down the track you may think about subdividing or building townhouses etc

Hi! I have three questions:

1) When you talked about the core area, do you mean RZ2 and up?

2) In ACT, can I build a dual occupancy in RZ1? My philosophy is basically "buy and hold". I am thinking to build a new one at the back of the house with the block of 800+m2.

3) If I decide to build, is it better to design the new building in such a way as if it is sub-dividable so that some times later (say 10 or 20 years) it could be sub-divided?

Anyone can help me on those questions? Thanks

Thomas
 
Top