By Alejandro Hernandez III, J.D. Certified Probate & Trust Specialist | Real Estate Advisor | Beverly Hills · New York · Austin
Holding real estate inside a trust is widely recommended — and for good reason. A properly structured trust can help families avoid probate, maintain privacy, facilitate the transfer of assets to heirs, and provide continuity of management when an owner becomes incapacitated or dies.
But trusts are not risk-free containers. The real estate held inside them carries risks that are distinct from the risks of directly owned property — risks related to valuation, liquidity, governance, and the dynamics of multiple beneficiaries with competing interests. These risks are rarely discussed when the trust is established, because estate planning attorneys are focused on the transfer structure, not on what happens when the real estate inside the trust eventually needs to be managed, refinanced, or sold.
By the time those questions arise, the original planning attorney may be long gone, the trust may have passed to a successor trustee who is new to the role, and the family may be navigating a complex asset with no roadmap.
Here is what families and trustees need to understand about the risks of trust-held real estate — before those risks become problems.
Valuation complexity
Real estate held inside a trust must be valued at several critical points: when the trust is created or modified, when the grantor dies and the estate tax return is filed, when property is distributed to beneficiaries, and when it is sold. Each of these valuation events carries its own rules, its own methodologies, and its own potential for dispute.
The valuation of trust-held real estate is more complicated than the valuation of directly owned property for several reasons. Fractional interests — situations where a trust holds a partial interest in a property, or where multiple trusts each hold a share — can involve significant valuation discounts that affect both tax planning and beneficiary distributions. Properties with long holding histories may have stepped-up basis issues that interact with disposition decisions in ways that are not intuitive. Properties held in irrevocable trusts have different valuation frameworks than those in revocable trusts.
Families who rely on informal appraisals, outdated valuations, or the listing broker’s opinion of value for these purposes are creating exposure — both to the IRS and to beneficiaries who may later challenge the figures used.
Liquidity pressure
Real estate is an illiquid asset. That fact does not change because the property is held in a trust — but the liquidity pressure often intensifies when multiple beneficiaries are involved and distributions are expected.
A common scenario: a family trust holds a significant property. The grantor dies. Beneficiaries — who may have different financial situations, different time horizons, and different relationships with each other — begin expecting distributions. Some want to sell immediately. Others want to hold. The trustee must navigate competing interests while managing a property that may require ongoing investment, maintenance, and expense management.
If the trust document does not clearly address the trustee’s authority to manage, lease, or sell real estate, the trustee may find themselves in legal no-man’s-land — unable to act decisively without risk of beneficiary challenge.
Liquidity planning — anticipating when the property will need to generate cash, how distributions will be structured, and what the trustee’s authority is — should be part of the trust’s real estate strategy from the beginning, not a problem to solve after the grantor has died.
Multi-beneficiary governance
When a trust holds real estate for the benefit of multiple beneficiaries, every significant decision about that property becomes a governance question. Should the property be leased? Renovated? Refinanced? Sold? Each of these decisions may implicate the competing interests of income beneficiaries (who benefit from current cash flow) and remainder beneficiaries (who benefit from long-term appreciation).
Trustees navigating these decisions without clear guidance — from the trust document, from legal counsel, and from independent advisory — frequently find themselves in the middle of beneficiary disputes that could have been anticipated and structured around.
The trustee’s obligation is to balance the interests of all beneficiaries, not to satisfy the most vocal one. That obligation requires deliberate governance: documented decision-making, transparent communication, and a clear process for evaluating and acting on significant real estate decisions.
The successor trustee problem
Most trusts are created with the grantor serving as their own trustee. The successor trustee — the person or institution who takes over when the original trustee dies or becomes incapacitated — often has no prior involvement with the trust’s assets and no real estate background.
A successor trustee who inherits trust-held real estate faces an immediate set of questions for which they may be entirely unprepared: What is the property worth? Should it be sold or held? What are the carrying costs? What are the tax implications of a sale? What does the trust document actually authorize?
Successor trustees who move forward without adequate advisory support — because they don’t know what they don’t know — are the ones most likely to make decisions that later become the subject of beneficiary disputes or court proceedings.
Early engagement of independent real estate advisory support is one of the most protective steps a successor trustee can take when first confronting trust-held property.
Cross-state complications
Families with real estate in multiple states face a layer of complexity that even experienced trustees often underestimate. A California trust holding New York real estate is subject to California trust law governing the trustee’s duties, but New York real estate law governing the property itself — and potentially New York estate tax rules if the grantor was a New York domiciliary or if the property has a certain value.
Refinancing trust-held property across state lines, transferring title from a deceased grantor’s trust to successor beneficiaries, and selling real estate held in a trust that was created in a different state all carry jurisdictional complexity that requires coordinated legal and advisory guidance.
The coordination gap between the estate attorney, the real estate attorney, and the financial advisors is where most cross-state trust real estate problems originate.
What sound practice looks like
None of these risks are insurmountable. They are manageable — with the right framework in place.
For families currently holding real estate in a trust, sound practice means periodically reviewing the trust document’s real estate provisions, maintaining current valuations on significant properties, and having a clear plan for how the property will be managed, distributed, or sold when the triggering event occurs.
For trustees — whether original or successor — sound practice means engaging independent advisory support before major decisions are made, not after. The time to understand your authority, your obligations, and your risks is before the property goes on the market, before the dispute arises, and before the decision that will later be scrutinized has already been made.
For attorneys and advisors who work with clients holding trust real estate, the conversation about these risks is most valuable during the estate planning process — when the trust document can still be structured to address governance, liquidity, and valuation questions explicitly.
Alejandro Hernandez III is a lawyer-trained strategic advisor and Certified Probate & Trust Specialist with more than 25 years of experience advising high-net-worth families, trustees, and professional fiduciaries on trust real estate strategy in California, New York, and Texas.
Advisory services are provided through ARH Real Estate Advisory Group and affiliated ARH entities. This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or tax advice. Alejandro Hernandez III, J.D. is not admitted to practice law in any state indicated; all services are offered in a non-legal advisory capacity.
Leave a Reply