I always loved these conversions. I know the tank issues are always a big concern but I'm sure there's some small towns that look the other way and are just happy something's being done to the property. I would love to live in either one of these remodels.
With USTs (underground storage tanks) the issue isn't so much permitting- will my town allow me to use it- as it is liability. Furthermore, it's the feds rather than local regulators who look into it.
If there are USTs on site,
or if there may have been tanks there in the past, it's incumbent on a prospective buyer to perform due diligence.
Due diligence in this case starts with an EPA Phase I environmental assessment.
Soil samples and testing will determine the nature of the issue/non-issue. In the presence of tanks, you may be able to remove them and that might be all there is to it. You may be able to encapsulate them and have them remain in place. Whether there are tanks or not, there may be soil remediation issues that must be addressed. This can get expensive if you have to dig up contaminated soil, dispose of it per EPA standards, and replace it with clean fill.
Failure to perform due diligence may be costly.
E.g. Fred owns a station which pollutes the soil/ground water. Fred sells the property to Bob. Fred has a gambling problem and goes broke. Later testing determines the property is in violation.
Future owners and/or the EPA can go after Bob- especially if the lawyers determine Bob has $. Even though Bob did not cause the problem, he bought the contaminated property and therefore assumed liability for its condition.
*None of this is offered as a legal opinion, nor does it constitute one.*
I certainly don't want to discourage anyone, either.
Gas station properties are very cool- just look at the 2 linked earlier in the thread.
I just wanted to add a little bit to the discussion in terms of some of the specifics I've learned about along the way.