Specialist · San Antonio, TX · Member since 2012 · 865 posts · 351 votes
I have a piece of land near San Antonio in a very desirable Area. The property is approximately 1.27 acres.
It is cleared ect. I took the land as a down payment on a house that we owner financed. The previous owner/ seller talk up the land and it did look good. I went to sell the property and it appears that building a house on the property would be problematic due to the land being in a flood plan. I have no intention of making a deal with the former owner, but he knows he got me on that one.
It appears that building a big nice shop and then owner financing it could be an option since a shop would not be at risk in the same way as a house, but I’m not sure if I could get the building financed or even what it would cost.
I would call an insurance agent that offers flood insurance and see if it is insurable and the rate. Compare that with another property that is not in a flood zone. I live in Florida. Most of it is in a flood zone but that does not mean you should not invest. It means you need to secure flood insurance which is in addition to wind/storm coverage in Florida. I assume Texas is no different.
I have a piece of land near San Antonio in a very desirable Area. The property is approximately 1.27 acres.
It is cleared ect. I took the land as a down payment on a house that we owner financed. The previous owner/ seller talk up the land and it did look good. I went to sell the property and it appears that building a house on the property would be problematic due to the land being in a flood plan. I have no intention of making a deal with the former owner, but he knows he got me on that one.
It appears that building a big nice shop and then owner financing it could be an option since a shop would not be at risk in the same way as a house, but I’m not sure if I could get the building financed or even what it would cost.
@Account Closed In general being in flood zone isnt a big deal depending on the price you paid for that. Technically everything is buildable. Important thing to know would be "what kind of flood zone is it in ?"(100 yrs, 500 yrs, or floodway)
Building a house isnt a problem at all. From insurance perspective all they care for is base elevation height . If you raise the building according to flood zone requirement then insurance would be a tad bit more compare to houses in non flood zone. I have and had properties in 100 yrs/500yrs/floodway .
Feel free to PM me with the address and i should be able to pull flood map.
NOT doing your due dilligence will cause issues every time. Did you get a title report on the property? They guy might have a lien on there also.
Put a for sale sign on the property and see what happens. As mentioned, you might be able to drop some road base and raise the level of part of the property to raise it up out of the flood plain.
@Account Closed mentioned), then shop policies. If there is current flood coverage, depending on zoning, the insurance coverage may be transferable. You would need to ask the carrier about your specific policy.
Where's the property? I may be interested. Shoot me a PM.
It depends on proximity to other areas....something I often see overlooked here when it comes to "bad" properties is whether not they can offset, mitigate or compliment a development. The value isn't as great as being developed, but it is often better than the alternative of be unusable.
A few examples that you can explore directly....
1) Is there biological resource value i.e. wetlands or other 'special' habitat? Often a development will need to disturb or destroy some habitat onsite simply to get a workable footprint. Usually to do so they will mitigate by permanently preserving or giving a conservation easement to other areas either onsite or offsite. They will either pay for the property itself, or the easement rights to the property to make the mitigation total work.
2) Could habitat be created to provide mitigation? If your property is next to or near a wetland, it's not as good as 'real' wetland but often they will allow you to create habitat as mitigation. Again someone will pay for this right depending on the circumstances. Usually the cost for this is higher and the mitigation value lower, but it is still something.
3) Are the areas adjacent to the property very build able, and is it feasible to increase the other property's usability if they offset support items to this area? Maybe they can put a parking lot, playground or a detention pond on this area thereby freeing up more of the build able area for development.
4) Is there any sort of flood control benefit? This one is probably the hardest to work out, but also makes a ton of sense if you can. The property is in a flood plain....over time as development occurs there is very often a need to expand or adjust the natural flood control system by adding flow capacity, storage volume or surface area. If by some chance you can find out if there are any flood control plans in the works, you may be able to offer your property for that. It may not be in the right segment of the flood plain, or be the wrong type of benefit (flow, storage or area) but it could be and it would be a win-win potentially.
None of these may actually be useful, but the only way to find out will be to physically explore each one....This is really a detailed approach to the old "offer the property to the neighbor". If he buys it he now has more flexibility in what he does with his property, including any of the above options should they become relevant at some time in the future. Hope this helps.
With Flood Insurance it matters where the building is located. Your property may have a part that is outside the major flood zone (but the property shows as being in the flood zone because part of it is). If that is the case, you may be able to keep the actual building out of the major flood zone (A or V) and thereby take away the mandatory flood requirement.