Buying older historic homes

[Shrewsburried]

Dismissing a home based on it's date of build is really too narrow of a constraint, though applying this homes built between the mid-'70s and early '90s comes close to reality.

For a variety of reasons, my preferred period of American home building is the late 1880's through the mid-1960's. This said, whether a home of this period is great is highly dependent on the original design (architecture of home and lot placement) and build quality, as well as the maintenance/updates performed over its existence.

Old homes can be maintenance nightmare if they are in fact old (with healthy dose of differed maintenance), however, in many cases these homes are old in name only.

An example: my friends recently sold a 1700's post and beam home for well below sqft/$ value as buyers in town demanded "low maintenance new builds". Well, whoever bought it got a great deal on this 'old home' as the only old bits in it was the original chestnut framing and wide plank flooring. The home had been jacked up and set upon a new 12 foot poured concrete foundation with a steel carrier beam. The sheathing replaced with plywood, insulated to modern code, and vapor barriers installed. Systems were current - efficient boiler, 200 square-D panel, PVC plumbing, etc. Sure, the roofline remains a bit wavy but with the structure now placed upon a sturdy foundation on new sill plates, that old growth chestnut frame was and will remain rock-solid.

I'd personally pass on a 1700's home, but not without first understanding how much of the 1700's build remains. There are plenty of of 1700-1800's homes in the area which are really the best of both worlds thanks to well heeled and determined owners - old growth wood and craft with modern upgrades. I know of at least 5-6 homes in my social circle which have been updated over time and now sit on poured concrete foundations and have the expected modern conveniences like 200 amp service, double pane fiberglass windows, high r insulation, etc. These homes are perfectly livable with very little maintenance overhead.

[scorpio516]

Originally Posted by motifone

I'd like to hear from others who have considered or purchased an older historic home, say late 1800's/early 1900s. There's certainly many of these in New England. The ones I've considered are older homes that have been given a modern update, while keeping true to the building's original character, such as original wooden floors and other woodwork. I'm not really looking to buy a place that hasn't already received some degree of overhaul... still, even with an older home that's been updated, I'm trying to be educated for pitfalls.

What are some considerations to keep in mind when considering property like this? I'm curious about:

1. heating and ability to retain heat -- energy efficiency, is it a money pit?
2. do they overheat in summer?
3. stone or rock basement considerations
4. attic/roofing/windows - poor venting?
5. is homeowner's insurance typically a lot higher on these?

Thanks for any input or experience you may have with this.

As everyone else said, early 1900s aren't historic here unless they are special.

Every question has the same answer - it depends.

1 - A mostly original 1740 house will be very inefficient. Single pane windows, air gaps, almost no insulation. An updated house of the same vintage will be at least as efficient as a new house.
Because of 780 CMR appendix 115 AA aka stretch code, all buildings and houses that are renovated have to meet higher-than-IECC levels. Renovate homes have to have a CoG U-0.030 and walls U-0.06 and roofs U-0.026.

2 - Houses built before HVAC don't overheat. Our climate helps.

3 - Rubble foundations are common, but all the settling happened a couple hundred years ago. They are fine unless they are disturbed.

4 - See #1

[Mark 24]

we own a historic home, 1853 Federal Colonial. Stone foundation, that will allow some seepage during heavy rainstorms. Also, with stone you are never alone. It is difficult to keep out field mice. We had looked at some homes with dirt floors. Yes, they still exist and I would stay away from them. There was no insulation when we moved in and yes wiring from the days of Edison. We replaced the attic wiring to allow insulation to be blown in. We added insulation to the outside walls by removing the clapboard and having insulation blown in. It made quite a difference in the warmth of the home and keeping outside noise out.. If the home has working fireplaces make sure they have damper, our fireplaces don't and covers are put on them in the winter. Not in the city then make sure you have a deep well. We have the original well and a deep well. Also, check the bathrooms. !853 no bathrooms were built, we still have the outhouse. Added bathrooms could be deficient today. Most Historic districts dictate outside appearance and many consider only street facing to be important. Federal law allows homes 50 years old and older to be considered historic, but most districts are pre 1900. Finding one with a barn is a plus!

[GeoffD]

With the new regulations, you need a hazmat suit to work on them. Bring lots of money.

There’s a historic house a couple hundred yards from me that has been rotting on the market. It’s priced at less than the value of the land. You can’t tear it down and it would likely be $300/square foot to gut and remodel.

[motifone]

I wanted to thank everyone again for the very helpful replies and details. Will definitely keep all of this in mind, and should we decide to go down the road of an older home, it will need to be one that has already been brought up to spec. Though I grew up here in MA, I spent the last couple decades out West, the last few years spent in a new construction home with creature comforts like HVAC, etc. It was cookie cutter I suppose but no real maintenance. We've come back this way to MA to be closer to family, and there's a lot of "New England" charm to the older homes, but I've also seen that character captured in some newer homes (colonials, custom builds, etc.). Given we are starting a new life here, we'll be mindful of any older home we look at, because taking on any big maintenance or renovation probably isn't in the cards for us right now. At most, might consider one that needs an attic conversion (have seen some very nice ones), but I'm sure that comes with its own considerations. Will keep looking around at what is available. Thanks!

[shiver916]

As someone pointed out insurance can be an issue. Many insurers are charging more for pre-1930 construction. My boss recently found this out as he had a rise in his premium with his insurer who he had been with for several years and prior to purchasing a mid 1700's home. rate nearly doubled after calling for an explanation on the initial increase. Several companies wouldn't even quote the home due to the age, eventually he found someone but took some hunting, and again, if a claim comes along you risk being dropped and starting all over again. YMMV

[Mr. Joshua]

I own a 1888 Queen Anne Shingle-Style in Dorchester. I would make sure the house is insulated and the electrical is updated. Our house is insulated and it is cool in the summer (on the first floor anyway) and warm in the winter. It is amazing what a good insulation job will do. Also, if there are original windows, do not replace them, simply put high quality storms on them (Harvey Tru- Channel). They are a fraction of the cost and they do just as good a job cutting drafts. Replacement windows devalue the home. Find out if it is built in bedrock because that is where you get the most radon.

Personally I would not go older than late 1800's. We love our home and it is built like a fort, it could conceivably be around for another 500 years if the right people own it.

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by shiver916

As someone pointed out insurance can be an issue. Many insurers are charging more for pre-1930 construction. My boss recently found this out as he had a rise in his premium with his insurer who he had been with for several years and prior to purchasing a mid 1700's home. rate nearly doubled after calling for an explanation on the initial increase. Several companies wouldn't even quote the home due to the age, eventually he found someone but took some hunting, and again, if a claim comes along you risk being dropped and starting all over again. YMMV

My understanding is this really isn't an issue unless the home is in a town's 'historic district'. My coworker owns a mid-1880's gothic rival and he pays a premium for coverage as the policy covers a 'period correct rebuild' in the event of a total loss. Another coworker owns an early 1800's post and beam colonial that's down the street, but outside the historic district, and their insurance is inline with with modern homes which have numerous operational fireplaces/wood stoves.

I suspect it's very insurer/plan dependent. My previous home insurer was a nightmare - dinged me for a large theft claim by previous owners, sent an inspector who flagged the property for numerous non-compliant' conditions despite the home being original and built to the code of the era (apparently the inspector and/or insurer has no historical context). They dropped my coverage within 12 months after a second inspector pointed out an additional non-compliance issue (I replaced severely failed window and didn't pull a permit). My new insurer hasn't sent an inspector in three years and charges me a small premium (<$100) for having annually inspected wood burning heat sources.