Get a 3-Flat Plus Coach House for Just $520K in Lincoln Park: 2327 N. Southport

This brick 3-flat plus coach house at 2327 N. Southport in Lincoln Park has been on the market since June 2011.

In that time, it has been under contract once and has been reduced $125,000 to just $520,000.

Built in 1886 on a 24×124 lot, the building still has some of its vintage features such as the original cast iron tubs and built-in hutches.

The units are as follows:

  • Unit #1: 1 bedroom, 1 bath and rents for $900 a month
  • Unit #2: 1 bedroom, 1 bath and rents for $940 a month
  • Unit #3: 1 bedroom, 1 bath and rents for $940 a month
  • Unit #4: 1 bedroom, 1 bath and rents for $840 a month

Tenants pay separate electric and gas. There is no parking.

The taxes are $24,442 which the listing says are currently being appealed.

With income of $43,400 a year, does this building make sense as an investment at this price given its location near DePaul?

What about as a possible single family home conversion?

Oleg Trifonov at Coldwell Banker has the listing. See the pictures here.

2327 N. Southport: 3-flat plus coach house

  • I couldn’t find an original sales price
  • Originally listed in June 2011 for $645,000
  • Reduced several times
  • Under contract once
  • Currently listed at $520,000
  • Taxes of $24,442
  • No mention of central air
  • No parking

 

13 Responses to “Get a 3-Flat Plus Coach House for Just $520K in Lincoln Park: 2327 N. Southport”

  1. Holy moly think of the $13,333 a year deprecation you can take each year on your taxes for the next 30 years! In 8 years you’ve recoupled the down payment and you get to take it for 31 additional years! Amazing stuff here guys, the GZ is never about the cash flow, it’s about the deprecation.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)
  2. Total taxes for 2010 (pay 2011) were $10,374.43.

    Current AV, per assessor’s website is 63,755; but after the last prior appeal (apparently for the 2010 tax year) it was 150,144. And the 2009 final was 164,263.

    Really weird.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  3. “deprecation”

    Heh.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
  4. Oh, most of the other 2-6 apartment buildings on the block (there are 16) still have much higher assessments, and this one’s assessment currently does not reflect having a basement apartment, so I would not count on taxes remaining at that level.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
  5. no. it doesn’t make sense on that income.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  6. If you defecate on a MACRS tax schedule is that deprecation?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
  7. This looks like a good deal. Brick 2 flats like these are usually pretty bulletproof and somewhat rare at this price in this area. Taxes do seem way high, other listings show 14-16k.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  8. 56% of gross income goes to RE taxes? $24,500 for unrenovated 3-flat w/alley house? This listing is a cautionary tale re: real estate taxes and their calculated valuation here in Cook County. Wonder if the current owner offended someone at the Tax Assessor’s Office, because it also seems like an assessment typo.

    Also, “tenant pays electric and gas” doesn’t mean that there’s no boiler in the basement providing heat for the entire building and metered to the building owner. “Original cast iron tubs” notation only further indicates exactly how “original condition” this 3-flat is in.

    Today’s three listings are all cautionary tales.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
  9. arch: as noted above, owner paid all of $10,374.43 (well, $13k and change, bc she paid in June) this year. Second half bill was $0.00.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
  10. Fucking idiot sellers chasing the market down. Three quarters of the time it is the god damn realtor giving bad advice to the seller. I’m so sick of it. Realtors claim their job is to get the highest price, which routinely results in a high listing price and several subsequent price decreases until it finally sells. You would think realtors, after all these years of being in the poor house, would learn their lesson. I’ve always been neutral towards realtors but now that quite recently in my office I saw a deal go bad over $7,500 bucks. It was tthhe god damn realtor who killed the deal. Can’t let his/her 92.3% list to sale price ratio be affected, right? wouldn’t want a 90.5% ratio in there to fuck it all up!

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -2 (from 2 votes)
  11. Don’t knock depreciation. Its a reason why some of us are landlords…Just Sayin

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)
  12. Four 1 bedroom units is a no-go. You’d be playing off-site landlord to 4 tennants, who are probably DePaul students or recent college grads. Sounds like a complete nightmare!

    That, and the tax issue are killers.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  13. TB (November 29, 2011, 9:04 am)
    Four 1 bedroom units is a no-go. You’d be playing off-site landlord to 4 tennants, who are probably DePaul students or recent college grads. Sounds like a complete nightmare!
    That, and the tax issue are killers.

    No landlord wants to live on the property. Site unseen is much less stressful. Got to look at it as a business.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

Leave a Reply


× two = 12