Its consistent enough to be a problem because probably 20-30% of lenders fall into this category, but not universal to the point where every lender does it, because another segment of lenders is skilled enough to work around these kinds of issues.

, and the risk in these real estate deals can be all over the map and not correlate very well to the distinction you've made?

This is a distinct risk, particularly when you are buying in a residential area that has historically not been zoned for inns.

Lastly, the ARV and the target market segment will have a big impact on how you proceed with the rehab.

Key characteristics include:Right to use, possess, and enjoy the propertyEntitlement to any income, profits, or benefits derived from the propertyBeneficial ownership interest even without formal legal documentationRight to compel transfer of legal title under appropriate circumstancesProtected by courts of equity rather than courts of lawOften based on principles of fairness and intended ownershipEquitable title holders possess the actual beneficial enjoyment of the property, even if they don't appear as owners in legal records.Common Situations with Split TitleLand Contracts/Contracts for Deed: Buyer has equitable title while seller retains legal title until final paymentTrusts: Trustee holds legal title while beneficiaries hold equitable titleReal Estate Purchase Agreements: Between signing and closing, buyer has equitable interest while seller retains legal titleNominee Ownership: Legal titleholder acts as nominee for equitable ownerLife Estates: Life tenant has equitable title to use during lifetime while remainderman has future legal interestForeclosure Redemption Periods: Borrower retains equitable title during redemption periodLegal SignificanceThe distinction between legal and equitable title has significant implications in property disputes, tax matters, bankruptcy proceedings, and estate planning.

The 2 may happen to cross at times but they are 2 very distinctively different groups. 

One of the major distinctions between SB-9 and SB-684 lies in how they treat lot size and subdivision limits.Under SB-9, there’s no maximum size limit on eligible lots.

I distinctly remember some moron writing about how he worked with an agent and lender for months to get under contract, then tried to shop them both last minute after all the work was done to save a couple hundred bucks on fees - to "trim the fat" in his words.

I think this distinction is important because of the amount of longer stays that occurred following  the storm in late 2024. 

Due to this distinction that the IRS draws you are not able to take the gains from the stock sale capital gains against the losses from depreciation for the syndication investment.