Skip to content

What is the difference between “Subject-to” and “Land Contract”?

A “subject to” and a “land contract” are both real estate transaction terms that involve the sale of property, but they represent different approaches and legal structures. Let’s explore the differences between the two:

  1. Subject To: “Subject to” refers to a type of real estate transaction where a buyer purchases a property subject to the existing mortgage or financing that is already in place. In this arrangement, the buyer takes over the property and its ownership, but the seller’s mortgage or financing remains in the seller’s name. The buyer essentially assumes the seller’s existing loan obligations without formally assuming the mortgage.

Pros of a “Subject To” Transaction:

  • Potentially allows a buyer to acquire a property without needing to secure new financing.
  • Can be a flexible option for both buyers and sellers.

Cons of a “Subject To” Transaction:

  • Seller remains liable for the mortgage, even though they no longer own the property.
  • Lender may have the right to call the loan due upon change of ownership.
  • Requires careful legal documentation to ensure compliance with mortgage terms and local laws.
  1. Land Contract: A land contract, also known as a “contract for deed” , “bond for deed”, or “installment land contract,” is a type of seller financing arrangement. In a land contract, the seller agrees to finance the purchase of the property for the buyer. The buyer makes regular installment payments to the seller over an agreed-upon period, typically without the involvement of a traditional lender.

Pros of a Land Contract:

  • Offers an alternative financing option for buyers who might not qualify for a conventional mortgage.
  • Provides more flexibility in negotiating terms between buyer and seller.
  • Buyer gains equitable interest in the property while making payments.

Cons of a Land Contract:

  • Legal ownership usually remains with the seller until the contract is fully paid.
  • Buyer may have limited rights and protections compared to a traditional mortgage.
  • Seller retains control over the property until the contract is fulfilled.

In summary, the key difference between a “subject to” transaction and a “land contract” lies in the way ownership and financing are structured. In a “subject to” deal, the buyer takes ownership of the property while the existing mortgage remains in the seller’s name. In a “land contract,” the seller provides financing to the buyer, who gains equitable interest in the property but doesn’t fully own it until the contract is paid off. Both arrangements have their advantages and risks, and individuals considering these options should seek legal and financial advice before proceeding.