Loading blog content, please wait...
Should You Buy the Old House to Tear Down or the Empty Lot In most established Nashville neighborhoods, the empty lot is the exception and the old house...
In most established Nashville neighborhoods, the empty lot is the exception and the old house is the rule. Sylvan Park, The Nations, parts of East Nashville and Inglewood... if you want to build there, you are usually buying somebody's tired 1940s cottage and planning to knock it down. Which raises a fair question when a rare vacant parcel does show up: is the lot actually the better buy, or does the house you have to demolish come with hidden advantages?
The answer depends less on the structure and more on what already runs to the property line. That is the part most people underweight.
An old house that has been lived in has water, sewer, gas, and electric already connected and metered. Those connections have real value, because bringing utilities to a raw lot is one of the least predictable line items in a Nashville project.
A vacant infill lot might sit thirty feet from the sewer main, or it might need a longer tap, a boring under the street, or a grinder pump if it sits low. You do not always know until someone pulls records and looks. With a teardown, the meters on the meter loop tell you the service is physically possible, because it is already happening.
That does not mean the connections are sized right for what you want to build. A 100-amp service feeding a small cottage will not carry a modern four-bedroom. But upgrading an existing service is a known quantity in a way that a brand-new tap is not.
Strip the emotion out and both options are the same thing underneath: a piece of Nashville land with a set of rights attached to it. Zoning, allowable height, setbacks, whether it sits in a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay, whether it can be split. Those rights travel with the land whether a house is standing on it or not.
So the first move on either property is the same. Pull the zoning, check the overlay, confirm what the parcel actually permits before you fall for the price. A cheap-looking empty lot in a conservation overlay can be far more constrained than a teardown two streets over with base zoning.
This is where development consulting earns its keep, and it is a good chunk of what we do at Arrt of Real Estate. We would rather tell you a lot cannot carry the project you have in mind before you write the offer than after.
People fixate on the cost of tearing the house down. In Nashville that is usually a modest number relative to the whole deal, especially for a single-story wood-frame house. Permitting the demo, disconnecting utilities properly, and hauling it off is a few weeks and a manageable figure.
The bigger variables hide in the house itself. Older Nashville homes can carry asbestos in floor tile, siding, or duct wrap, and lead paint is common in anything pre-1978. Testing and abating those adds cost and time, and you want that priced before closing, not discovered mid-demo.
There is also the tree question, which trips up more infill projects here than demolition ever does. Nashville protects certain trees, and a mature hackberry or oak sitting where you want your foundation can force a redesign or a mitigation cost. A vacant lot with a big canopy has the same problem, so this one is a wash.
An old house that has stood on the site for eighty years is quietly telling you something: the ground held it up. Foundations, drainage patterns, how water moves across the lot... a standing structure is decades of evidence that the site is buildable.
A raw lot gives you none of that history. It might be beautiful and flat and still hide fill dirt, a high water table, or rock close to the surface that turns your foundation into a blasting job. Nashville sits on limestone, and rock excavation is one of the surprises that quietly wrecks a budget.
None of this is a reason to avoid vacant lots. It is a reason to spend a little on a geotechnical look before you commit, on either property.
The teardown usually costs more up front, because you are paying for a house you plan to destroy plus the demolition. The trade is that you often get faster answers and fewer unknowns, which shortens the risky part of the timeline.
The empty lot usually costs less to buy and skips the demo entirely. The trade is more unknowns to run down, and each unknown is a place your schedule and budget can slip.
There is also a carrying-cost angle worth naming. A teardown you can sometimes rent for a few months while you finish design and permitting, which offsets holding costs in a way a bare lot never will. That short income window does not make or break a deal, but on a tight pro forma it is real money.
If the numbers are close and the vacant lot has clean, confirmed utilities to the property line and no soil surprises, the lot is usually the cleaner path. Less to remove, less to test, less that can hide.
If the utilities on the lot are a question mark, or you cannot get comfortable with the soil, a teardown with live services and eighty years of proof that the ground holds is often the safer buy even at a higher price. In much of core Nashville that is the only option anyway, so the practical question becomes which teardown, not teardown versus lot.
The honest answer is that you decide this after the diligence, not before. Pull the zoning, confirm the utilities, test the soil, price the abatement, and check the trees on whichever property you are looking at. Do that work first, and the choice tends to make itself.