I’ve been following a lot of the discussions here around infill lots and unusual layouts, so I figured I’d ask directly. I’m currently marketing a Metro Atlanta land bank lot that has some potential, but it’s definitely not your standard easy-build lot. Curious what other investors/builders here would do with it.
Before I’d decide whether to build or pass, I’d probably focus less on the lot itself and more on the exit. A lot of unusual lots can still work if the end product fits what buyers in that specific pocket are already paying for.
A few things I’d want to know are: what are new construction homes within about a mile actually selling for, what are the average days on market, and whether there are any zoning setbacks, easements, or build restrictions that shrink your usable footprint. I’ve seen lots look great on paper until setbacks or topography reduce the buildable area way more than expected.
If the numbers still work after carrying costs, site work, permits, and a healthy contingency, then I’d get creative before passing. Sometimes a narrower footprint, modern design, or smaller efficient layout can make an odd lot work surprisingly well. But if the deal only works under perfect conditions and leaves very little room for error, I’d probably move on and wait for a cleaner opportunity.
Really appreciate this take, Travis, especially the reminder to think about the exit first. That point about setbacks and the usable footprint is huge on these types of lots. I like your approach of seeing if the numbers still work with real-world friction before getting too creative with design.
What’s usually the first red flag that tells you a deal isn’t worth pursuing further?
For me, one of the first red flags is when the deal only works if every assumption goes perfectly. If I have to assume top-of-market resale pricing, no delays, minimal site work, no surprises during permitting, and perfect construction costs just to make the numbers look attractive, I usually start backing away.
With infill lots specifically, site work can become a silent deal killer. People focus heavily on purchase price and build cost but underestimate things like grading, drainage, retaining walls, utility connections, tree removal, or unexpected foundation requirements. I've seen a lot that looked like a great deal upfront suddenly become a completely different deal after getting real bids.
I also pay attention to whether I’m solving a problem or creating one. If the lot forces me into a design that becomes difficult to finance, difficult to build, or difficult to sell later, that's usually my signal to slow down.
Good points, especially on assumptions needing to be realistic, not ideal. I’ve seen site work and permitting blow up numbers pretty quickly too, so that’s a big one to watch. I also like your “solve a problem vs create one” filter. That’s a solid way to cut through the noise.
The strength of the area trumps the lot, in my opinion. I can solve a lot of issues and put up with a lot if the exit supports the work. Even free land bank lots here aren't worth the effort if you can't sell or rent the end product due to the area. You can only get build prices down so low, and some areas won't even support the most basic of house without subsidies, and possibly even with them.