Owning a park in a HUD state?

Hello all,

I’ve heard Frank speak about HUD monitored states (Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming), but I’d like to know more. As a park owner, what costs or concerns arise from owning a park in one of these states?

I’d like to know how being in a HUD state affects operating a park there, and if it is enough hassle to not want to own a park there.


Wanted to follow up on this and see if you learned anything additional on the topic since the post. I am interested in a park in Maryland and am not too familiar with specific MH laws. I know in NJ that it’s really a county by county affair. Some counties have rent control while others do not. So you have to be careful with that.

As far as I know, the only significant issue is the HUD requirements for new home installs. Existing foundations (which are serving all of the other homes in the park just fine) will be deemed substandard and need thousands of dollars of extra work each time a new home is brought in. It also adds some extra red tape and costs directly (another round of inspection, more fees).

1 Like

I operated parks in NJ. Owning a park in a HUD state will require increased compliance with respect to HUD’s installation program. HUD has inserted itself into the process to prepare a lot for a new or used home. They require more than what is probably needed and they did a limited number of field inspections in NJ. There are also forms to be filled out and sent in when a home is purchased and then when it is sold.

The HUD program is not a reason to avoid states entirely especially if you find a worthwhile deal.

1 Like

Ippo, appreciate the detailed response.