Updated August 16, 2026
Yes, and buildings in both situations sell in Los Angeles regularly — but the two are not equivalent, and a seller should not treat them as one problem. An open LAHD or Building and Safety violation is a repair item with a cure path and a cost that both sides can estimate. REAP — the Rent Escrow Account Program — is a different order of magnitude: it means the city has placed the building in a program where tenants pay reduced rent into a city-held escrow account instead of to the owner, and the money does not come back until the violations are cleared and the building is removed from the program. A building in REAP has a broken income statement, which changes both who will buy it and how they underwrite it.
Most buildings that have been operated for decades carry something. A deferred plumbing item, a habitability complaint, a systematic code enforcement inspection finding that was never signed off. Buyers expect this.
Get the full record before you list. Pull the open case history from LAHD and Building and Safety yourself. What you cannot see, you cannot price, and what you cannot price, the buyer prices for you — conservatively.
Decide cure-or-credit deliberately. Small, straightforward items are usually cheaper for the seller to fix, because a buyer's credit request will exceed the actual repair cost. Large structural or system items are frequently better handled as a negotiated credit, since the buyer will do the work their own way regardless.
Know which items block financing. Habitability and life-safety findings can affect a lender's willingness to fund, which turns a repair item into a closing risk. Those need to be identified early, not in week three of escrow.
REAP is triggered when cited habitability violations are not corrected within the required time. The consequences are financial and they compound:
Rent is reduced and redirected. Tenants pay a reduced amount into a city-administered escrow account rather than to the owner. The owner's collections on affected units effectively stop.
Escrowed funds are not released on demand. They are released through the program's process after the violations are corrected and the building is removed from REAP — and tenants may petition for funds to be released to them for relocation or repairs.
Rent increases are barred while the building is in the program. Whatever adjustment would otherwise have applied does not.
The building is publicly flagged. REAP status is a matter of record. Every buyer's diligence finds it.
The result is that a REAP building does not present a normal operating statement. The trailing income is understated relative to what the building would produce clean, and a buyer has to decide how much of that gap they are willing to pay for in advance of doing the work.
The buyer pool narrows to people who do this specific thing. That is not a disaster — LA has a genuine population of value-add and repositioning buyers who are comfortable acquiring a distressed-compliance asset — but it is a smaller, more sophisticated pool, and they bid accordingly.
They underwrite to the cure cost plus time. Not just the contractor number, but permits, inspections, the clearance process, and the months of impaired collections while it runs.
They discount for uncertainty. An owner who has not scoped the work leaves the buyer estimating, and buyers estimate defensively.
They will not pay for escrowed funds they cannot control. The escrow balance is not a receivable a buyer will value at face.
The single highest-leverage thing a seller in REAP can do is remove the uncertainty: get a real contractor scope and bid on the outstanding violations, document what has already been corrected, and know exactly where the case stands with the inspector. A buyer bidding against a documented $180,000 scope prices differently than one bidding against an unknown.
Both situations are squarely material and squarely disclosable. Open citations, REAP status, the escrow balance, correspondence with LAHD, tenant habitability complaints, and any pending administrative proceedings all belong in the disclosure package. This is not a close call, and a seller who understates it converts a price problem into a post-close liability problem.
Open violations are a normal negotiation — pull the record, scope the cure, decide fix-versus-credit item by item. REAP is a different conversation: the building's income is suppressed by the program itself, the buyer pool narrows to specialists, and the discount is driven mostly by unknowns. If you are in REAP and not in a hurry, getting the violations cured and the building removed from the program before listing will usually return more than the cost of the work. If you need to sell as-is, the substitute for a clean building is a fully documented one.
Does REAP transfer to the new owner?
The program attaches to the property, so the buyer takes on the situation and the obligation to complete the corrections and pursue removal. That is precisely why it is priced into the offer rather than treated as the seller's problem to finish.
Can I collect the escrowed rent before closing?
Not on demand. Escrowed funds are released through the program's process, generally tied to correcting the violations and exiting REAP, and tenants may have claims against the account. Sellers should not assume the balance is money they will see at close.
Will a lender finance a building with open habitability violations?
Some will, many will not, and it usually depends on severity. Life-safety and habitability findings are the ones that most often stop an agency or bank lender, which is a reason to identify open items before you accept an offer contingent on financing.
Michael Sterman is Senior Managing Director Investments at Marcus & Millichap.
Thinking about selling? Get a no-obligation evaluation on your building.
Request Free Evaluation →