| Summary | National Percentile | Rank vs Metro |
|---|---|---|
| Housing | 51st | Best |
| Demographics | 49th | Good |
| Amenities | 35th | Best |
Multifamily Valuation
| Property Details | |
|---|---|
| Address | 600 Wallace Ave, Troy, NC, 27371, US |
| Region / Metro | Troy |
| Year of Construction | 1981 |
| Units | 44 |
| Transaction Date | 1981-01-01 |
| Transaction Price | $51,500 |
| Buyer | MONTGOMERY HOUSING PARTNERSHIP |
| Seller | --- |
600 Wallace Ave Troy NC 44-Unit Multifamily
Neighborhood occupancy is solid and renter concentration is meaningful for demand resilience around the property, according to WDSuite’s CRE market data; these signals reflect the surrounding neighborhood, not the specific asset.
The surrounding neighborhood ranks first out of 22 metro neighborhoods (A+ rating), indicating competitive local fundamentals relative to the metro. Neighborhood occupancy is measured at 94.5% (68th percentile nationally), suggesting above-median stability for leased housing in this area.
Renter-occupied housing accounts for an estimated 50.5% of units, placing the renter concentration in the top quartile among 22 metro neighborhoods. For multifamily investors, this points to a deeper tenant base and potential support for steady leasing, even as pricing should be set with local incomes in mind.
Amenity access is modest: grocery and pharmacy options are present at the neighborhood level, while cafes, restaurants, and parks are comparatively sparse. This amenity mix fits a suburban profile and tends to favor residents prioritizing value and convenience over entertainment density; lease-up strategies may benefit from highlighting on-site features and everyday access rather than lifestyle amenities.
The average nearby building vintage skews older (1973), while the subject property was built in 1981. Being newer than the neighborhood average can support competitive positioning versus older stock, though investors should still plan for system updates and targeted renovations typical for 1980s construction.
Comparable suburban and rural neighborhoods across the region can vary widely in reported crime. WDSuite does not show a verified neighborhood crime ranking in this dataset, so investors often review local law enforcement reports and recent trend data to assess safety and potential impacts on leasing and insurance.
Regional employment includes distribution and corporate services reachable by car, which can contribute to renter demand for workforce housing. Notable nearby employer within driving distance is listed below.
- Sysco — foodservice distribution offices (42.5 miles)
This 44-unit 1981 asset benefits from a neighborhood that leads the metro in overall ranking and shows above-median occupancy, supporting an income-focused thesis with steady tenant demand. Renter concentration sits in the top quartile locally, reinforcing the depth of the leasing pool, while a suburban amenity profile suggests positioning around value, essentials access, and property-driven conveniences. Based on commercial real estate analysis from WDSuite, the asset’s slightly newer vintage than the area norm can be competitive versus older stock, though targeted CapEx for 1980s systems and unit modernization should be part of the plan.
Home values in the area are comparatively lower in a national context, which can create some competition with ownership options; however, sustained renter presence and stable neighborhood occupancy indicate ongoing reliance on multifamily housing. Investors should weigh small-market scale and limited lifestyle amenities against durable occupancy signals and workforce demand tied to regional employers.
- Neighborhood leads the metro and posts above-median occupancy, supporting income stability
- Top-quartile renter concentration indicates a deep tenant base for leasing and renewals
- 1981 vintage offers competitive positioning versus older stock with targeted value-add potential
- Suburban essentials (grocery, pharmacy) support convenience-focused positioning despite limited cafes/parks
- Risks: small-market scale, modest amenity density, and potential competition from ownership alternatives