Homes with solar panels are a hard sell. Take that from a x realtor.

Even if they pay off the lease, thats just one issue of many. If you are dead set on this house, you want the lease paid off, solar panels removed and that part of the home re-shingled.

Don't get in too big of a hurry. You can easily find a house to rent this time of year.

Solar (PV Arrays) in theory sound great, however when it takes tax incentives to make the deal work it's one indication that without the incentives the concept may be flawed. I would only consider them if I lived on a mountain top and there were no other options, e.g., off the grid.

I am involved in commercial real estate as part of my job and have direct experienced where some insurance companies refused to offer property coverage when solar panels were installed on a large building. The rational for declining the commercial coverage was that in the event of a fire the fire dept would not be able to penetrate/attack the fire through the roof which is a common method with all the PV equipment that was installed.

Also, I have analyzed a number of lease/ground lease PV proposals, where the owner is renting the roof or acres to the PV company for a long period of time. For the average homeowner the level of complexity and financial risk would suggest taking a pass on the opportunity. Most of us are not equipped to evaluate the risks, ongoing expenses and potential hazards associated with such an installation.

I also evaluated three proposals for my own roof in CT against PV companies, and even with the high electric cost in our area the risk/return did not make sense. I used discounted cash flow analysis as well as the incentives from State/Federal programs and still didn't make sense or the breakeven was over 12 - 13 years, again that was the breakeven on a DCF basis.

Also, like the ever-improving technology with CPU's e.g., "Moore's Law" there is a similar "Law" that applies to PV systems the proposition being that PV technology for solar panels becomes more efficient over time referred to as "Swanson's Law". This law states that the price of solar photovoltaic modules decreases by approximately 20% for every doubling of cumulative solar capacity.

Good luck, might want to take a pass for now.

run, don't walk away from that boondoggle. Neighbor next to me was selling house with similar setup. Buyer would not buy it until homeowner removed the panels and fix the roof. Seller eventually did that and used the panels on his other house in South Florida.

No! Why would you want to assume that responsibility? Hundreds of homes for sale IMO I pick one with less hassle and iNO lease is a hassle.

I would never consider a house with solar panels, unless it was well below similar market values. Even if they were paid off, there are concerns with roof intrusions/leaks, insurance company wanting to insure it, and how will it behave during high winds/hurricane.

Why take on all of those unknowns? If it was such a great idea, it wouldn't need tax incentives. That you aren't getting as the buyer.

If a real estate agent is recommending the house, I would ask them if they have solar panels on their roof. If not, why not?

I see posts like this and wonder how people dumb enough to lease a solar system could save enough money to buy a home here.

Then I remember time shares are still a thing too.

Do not buy this home. There is no telling what other stupid decisions this person made.

Just go buy a new one. They are overstocked and making deals.