Garden Groves
Preliminary Information – Full Audit Pending
This buildings features were determined from publicly available data, including MLS listings. While we cross-referenced additional data sources, it still likely contains incomplete or inaccurate information, as it has not yet been personally verified.
Once a building has been fully audited, this page will be replaced with an in-depth analysis featuring verified details and photos of every key feature.
Until then, we provide a data‑driven overview that blends statistical analysis of the checkbox selections agents make in MLS with an AI‑powered read of their public remarks—yielding a clearer picture of the building than raw listings alone.
If this building is important to your search, you can help prioritize it for a full audit by requesting one below. To see what a complete report looks like, check out the example full report.
Garden Groves
Building Overview
Garden Groves in Nanakuli-Maili (built 1975). Pets and short-term rentals not allowed; management company listed as unknown.
About Garden Groves
Garden Groves is a condominium community located in the Nanakuli-Maili neighborhood. According to available records, the building was constructed in 1975. MLS data provided does not include unit count, building size, or construction type.
Key policies recorded for the property include a prohibition on pets and a prohibition on short-term rentals. The MLS listing identifies the management company as unknown; no further amenity or on-site service information is provided in the available data.
Additional details such as parking arrangements, association fees, utility responsibilities, unit mixes, and specific amenities are not included in the MLS data provided. Based on MLS data analysis, buyers should verify all building-specific details, rules, and financials with the listing agent or association before making decisions.
Building Features & Data Confidence
All features from MLS data with AI-assisted confidence analysis. Click each category to expand and see details.
No analysis available
I checked the remarks for owner-occupancy clues such as a percentage, majority owner-occupied wording, or similar descriptors and found nothing. Without explicit listing remarks, the owner occupancy rate cannot be determined.
I searched the remarks for any elevator references, including specific counts or general mentions of multiple elevators, and found none. Given this is a small townhouse-style community of 46 units, the remarks do not provide enough evidence to determine elevator count.
Calculated from the lowest association fee observed across all non-penthouse unit listings for this building.
Calculated from the highest association fee observed across all non-penthouse unit listings for this building.
Calculated from association fees observed in penthouse unit listings for this building.
No analysis available
No analysis available
All current MLS records (9 of 9) include OTCOEX in the association fee inclusions, which aligns with common-area electricity being covered. Public remarks do not explicitly call it out, so this appears to be an MLS-coded feature rather than an agent-described amenity. Confidence is solid but slightly below explicit-mention level because the remarks themselves are silent.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Patio/deck amenities are strongly supported across the listing remarks. At least 4-5 remarks explicitly describe a patio, covered patio, lanai, or courtyard, and the current MLS amenities data shows 7 of 9 listings coded with PATDEC/COVPAT. This looks consistent across multiple agents rather than a one-off copy/paste error.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
In-unit laundry appears to be available in at least some units, based on current MLS data showing washer/dryer included in 2 of 9 listings. None of the public remarks explicitly mention washer/dryer or in-unit laundry, so this does not look strongly confirmed by agent descriptions and may reflect inconsistent copy-paste MLS entries.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Parking is clearly present for this building. Multiple current remarks across listings mention 'two assigned parking stalls' or 'two parking stalls in front of unit,' and the MLS parking_features field is populated in 9/9 listings with no NONE values. This looks consistent across listings rather than a one-off agent copy.
Assigned parking is strongly supported by both MLS data and remarks. Eight of nine current listings are marked ASSIGN, and several agents explicitly state 'two assigned parking stalls' or similar wording. The consistency across multiple listings makes this a high-confidence building feature.
No analysis available
I searched for deeded/owned parking language such as "deeded parking," "owned stall," or "parking included in deed." The remarks only confirm assigned stalls, which is not enough to conclude deeded parking.
No analysis available
I looked for any parking-related fees or rental charges, but the remarks only mention assigned stalls. Since no fee is described, there is no evidence of a separate monthly parking charge.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
I searched for references to a parking waitlist, waiting list, or joining a list for parking, but found none. The available remarks only say the units have assigned parking stalls.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Double-wall construction appears in the current MLS material data for 7 of 9 listings, which is strong but not overwhelming evidence. None of the public remarks explicitly say "double wall" or "two walls," so this is supported primarily by the MLS checkbox/material field rather than agent comments.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
I looked for STR indicators such as short-term rental allowed, legal vacation rental, NUC/TVU, or minimum-stay rules, but nothing explicit appeared. Because there is no affirmative STR language, this is treated as not evidenced in the remarks.
I searched for hotel pool participation terms, but the remarks contain none. Since there is also no evidence that STR is allowed, hotel pool participation is not supported here.
I looked for language indicating a required hotel or rental pool program, but found nothing. There is also no evidence of STR allowance, so mandatory pool participation is not supported.
No analysis available
No analysis available
I looked for leasehold language such as a ground lease end date, lease expiry year, or renewal term, but found none. The explicit "Fee Simple" remark points away from a leasehold structure, so there is no lease expiration year to extract.
I searched the public remarks for any indication that the building is VA approved or accepts VA financing, but found nothing. Because there is no explicit VA language, this remains unconfirmed and is treated as not evidenced in the remarks.
I searched the remarks for insurance-related phrases indicating full building or walls-in coverage and found no such language. The listings discuss maintenance fees, parking, and unit features, but do not address HOA insurance status.
No analysis available
I looked for explicit references to FLSE, fire/life safety compliance, fire safety certification, or a passed fire inspection and found none. With no evidence in the public remarks, this is treated as unconfirmed and currently set to false.
Flood zone determined from official FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) data using building coordinates, not from agent-reported listing data.
No analysis available
Ocean views are strongly supported across multiple listings. At least 3 listings explicitly mention ocean views or being directly across from the ocean, while additional remarks repeat the building’s oceanfront-adjacent location, suggesting this is not a one-off agent typo. Buyers looking for ocean-view units would reasonably include this building.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
There is no remark-based evidence for sunset views in the current listings. Although 3/9 MLS entries show SUNSET in view descriptions, the listing remarks do not confirm it, so this appears more likely to be unchecked or copied data than a verified building-wide feature. Based on the available text, sunset views should not be included.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Evidence for a resident manager is weak: 3 of 9 listings have RESMAN checked, but the public remarks do not mention a resident manager, on-site manager, or live-in manager at all. Because the support comes only from a small subset of MLS amenities fields and not from agent descriptions, confidence is low.
No analysis available
No analysis available
Confidence levels are based on MLS checkbox data and AI analysis of listing remarks. High = strong evidence, Medium = some evidence, Low = limited or conflicting evidence. Buyers should always verify critical details independently.