My neighbours did this; took about 5 years start to finish (from the time they bought the trailer to the time they sold it). It apparently took some convincing of the county because they were restricted to one house on the piece of land...so having the mobile home AND the new house was against zoning bylaws. Thankfully the county agreed if the mobile home was gone when the moved into the new house. There was about a month in which they camped out in the yard because the mobile home was sold and gone but the house hadn't passed final inspection. All that being said, it worked, they have a gorgeous house and no debts. That being said, they had TONS of family to help them with the build, and she was a stay at home mom (they have 5 kids!), and dad was a trucker who would be home for stretches at a time. Personally, I built my place in a year working only evenings and weekends plus my holiday time, without an entire crew of workers. $50k wouldn't have gotten it to lock-in stage, but it would have covered my excavation, foundation and at least 1/2 of framing (except I dug my own basement and poured my own foundation....so we're talking material costs). Where there's a will, there's a way right??

Are we getting the horse a bit back of the cart, here, possibly? Have you bought your house yet? I assume not, in that you don't have mortgage set up, it appears. I'm not familiar with the housing situation generally, and certainly not with what's going on in your area, but the housing situation in many parts of the U.S. is in a real mess. Many bought several years ago, with small equity, and paying something like 1.5% interest directly at the time, but the actual amount being charged was much higher, say, 6% ...with the extra being added to the principal owing! The contract specifying that the rates were to be renegotiated after a certain number of years. When the amount that the mortgagees actually needed to pay became apparent on renegotiation ... the people couldn't pay it. So the house went on the market. Along with thousands of others in the same boat. Those (what many of us would call "spurious") mortgages were peddled over wide areas. Including to a Canadian bank in which I've held shares for 41 years, during which time share price advanced from $4.20 to about $106. and change, last May. Unfortunately, it seems that my bank had also backed an insurance company that had underwritten many of those lousy mortgages. As you know, North American stock markets are down a substantial amount during the last few months - but nothing like more than 40%! You can understand my feeling that I'd more or less like to use those guys who dreamed up that shady way of doing business as targets at a shooting range? The speed at which the Fed began freeing up money when this problem surfaced a while ago, and has moved on it again since, including today, in concert with the Canadian central bank, and some European ones the same, leads me to think that there's a lot more trouble yet to appear in the housing crisis in the U.S. Remember the Savings and Loan crisis of something like 30 years ago? Some are opining that this may turn out to be worse. If I were you, and it's at all convenient, I think that I'd be sitting on my money for a while. By the time house prices get down about as low as they may be about to go ... ... perhaps you'll have had the opportunity to have saved most of that $30,000. shortage, especially if you go into fairly heavy-duty savings mode in the meantime ... ... in which case - perhaps your problem may well have disappeared. Maybe more than disappeared ... for possibly the house you want may have had its price dropped by that $30,000. ... possibly more? And you may well have more than the "extra" $30,000. on hand ... ... Hey! maybe you can have enough extra down payment to be able to avoid mortgage insurance! The loss in value of that stock of mine since last May is about half of the amount that you're short. But I've held it for 41 years, so I guess I'm more or less too much attached to it to sell it now (and this is not the time to sell it, in any case - might be time to buy more). Just some food for thought. My daughter's wanting to buy housing in the Phoenix area. I've been suggesting to her for months that she keep her money in her jeans for a while. She made an offer last year, there was $5,000. difference, with neither stubbornly willing to spring for the diff. Within a few months, after she returned to her former location in Toronto ... ... she told me that a re-valuation of the premises had come in ... ... at $20,000. lower. Now she's back in Scottsdale, keeping her eye on the situation. Maybe even both eyes, on occasion? Sitting on her money ... still (I hope). I hope that you're having a great old week, at your "house" - (wherever that may be, at the moment!). ole joyful P.S. I'm not as upset as it sounds - when dealing with much of business in general, and the stock market, in particular, if one were to sweat the small stuff (or take a short-term view) ... ... one would have one's fingernails chewed down to bleeding, a good share of the time. Closing on age 80, very thankful to be enjoying good health, with only a small portion of needed health care payable directly, and fairly sure that I have sufficient assets to carry me through the remaining days of life ... ... with some residue for charities and offspring ... ... I'm a happy man! o j P.P.S. For many families, buying their home is the largest contract that they ever make. I strongly suggest that you make it your business to investigate the current housing crisis in the U.S. thoroughly, up, down and sideways, during the coming months, including prospects in your area. There may be a hurricane approaching. o j

Has all the wiring been inspected? 1970 homes can have aluminum wiring. Also a home that old was not built to any HUD standards, and will be lacking in insulation, structural strength, and fire resistance. You may not be able to insure it even if you manage to get a mortgage.

Is that because it might fall apart during a move? You might hear all kinds of valid reasons for it, but really it is just to prevent mortgage fraud. One of the problem with any movable home is that it can be picked up and moved somewhere else before being paid for. So you can get a mortgage, move the home off the land and essentially leave the bank nothing other than a lot to foreclose on. There was pressure to not make the loans at all, but there were obvious concerns about disallowing them altogether. So they came up with the one placement solution. That solution allows loans on the property while disincentivized moving the homes, as any move after the original placement destroys so much value that it is just not worth it. It is a very elegant solution except for people who place a manufactured home on a parcel that they can't or won't sell. It largely destroys their ability to get any return on the home. I suspect that technology has changed to an extent that there might be other solutions today that would largely achieve the same goal.