La Casa

MLS property data is fully consistent, with 24/24 listings reporting the building was built in 1976. No remarks contradict or suggest a later reconstruction date.

The highest observed unit floor in MLS data is 23 (with other units on floors 7–22) and no remarks specify a higher or total floor count. This supports estimating the building at 23 floors, though it is only moderately certain since roof amenities are mentioned but not floor-numbered.

No listing remarks state a total unit count (e.g., 'X-unit building'), and no reliable MLS field is provided. As a result, the total number of units cannot be determined from the available data.

I searched for a stated owner-occupancy percentage and descriptive terms indicating a majority or high owner-occupied ratio. The remarks contain only general references to owner occupants, so the current value of 49% is retained with low confidence and no change.

I searched for specific elevator-count language such as '4 elevators,' written-out numbers, or 'multiple elevators.' No such count was found. The current value of 2 is retained with low confidence because the remarks provide no evidence to confirm or change it.

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.

Public remarks repeatedly mention room/unit AC (window or split-type) and never describe central air conditioning or building-chilled water systems. With 0 of 20 listings checking central AC in the fee-includes field, there is strong evidence that central AC is not provided or included in the maintenance fees. Buyers should assume individual AC, not a central building system.

Cable TV inclusion appears to be a building-level fee feature with very high confidence. Recent MLS data shows 18 of 20 listings marking CABTV as included, and none of the remarks provide any evidence that this changed. This is consistent across multiple agents and likely not a one-off listing error.

Nine of 20 current listings indicate OTCOEX, meaning common area electricity is included in the association fee. No public remarks explicitly mention common electric or building power, so support is moderate rather than conclusive.

Multiple remarks highlight 'FEE SIMPLE' ownership, which is inconsistent with a co-op structure that would have co-op taxes built into monthly charges. With 0 of 20 listings checking the co-op tax inclusion field, there is overwhelming evidence that cooperative taxes are not applicable here. The building should be treated as a fee simple condo, not a co-op.

None of the reviewed listings indicate that in-unit electricity is part of the monthly maintenance fee, and 0/20 agents marked electricity as included in the MLS fields. Public remarks are silent on any 'all-utilities-included' arrangement, which is usually advertised if present. It is therefore very likely that unit electricity is billed separately to owners/tenants.

Across all listings, there is no indication that the building uses or includes gas service—no agents checked a gas-included field and no remarks mention gas ranges or gas utilities. The building appears to be all-electric, so gas is not an HOA-included utility. Buyers should assume no gas service and no gas charges in the maintenance fee.

Hot water inclusion is not supported: only one listing marks HOTWAT, while 17 of 20 list WTRHTR. Remarks repeatedly reference individual or new water heaters and contain no "hot water included" language, strongly supporting a false value.

7 of 20 current MLS listings indicate internet service (INTSER) is included in association fees. Public remarks do not mention internet/wifi; the evidence comes from several agents' MLS checkboxes and suggests some units/assessments include internet, but confidence is moderate due to lack of explicit remarks.

None of the listings describe marina access, boat slips, or related HOA-covered charges, and 0/20 MLS entries flag any marina inclusion. The building is positioned near beaches and parks rather than a marina facility. There is extremely strong evidence that marina fees or access are not included in the maintenance fee.

Nineteen of 20 current listings mark SEWER as included in the association fee. Public remarks are silent on sewer, but the highly consistent MLS data across listings provides very high confidence.

Nineteen of 20 current listings indicate that WATER is included in the association fee. Although public remarks do not explicitly discuss water billing, the consistent MLS evidence across multiple listings is very strong.

None of the listings advertise any BBQ, grill, or outdoor cooking facilities in the building. The complete absence of MLS BBQ checkmarks supports that La Casa does not provide a designated BBQ area.

Across 20 listings, there are no remarks referencing bike storage, bicycle rooms, or bike racks, and 0/20 have a bike-storage amenity checked in the MLS data. Given that agents consistently highlight other building amenities, the complete lack of any bicycle-storage mention provides strong evidence that the building does not offer dedicated bike storage.

Listings emphasize proximity to beaches, parks, and the Ala Wai canal but never discuss dock or mooring access. The MLS data confirms there is no marina amenity associated with the building.

At least 7 current remarks explicitly mention a "car wash area," including "La Casa offers excellent amenities" and "Building has ... a car wash area." The feature is also present in 11/20 MLS amenity records and is supported by multiple recurring listing descriptions, so it is strong building-level evidence rather than an isolated claim.

Agent remarks focus on rooftop amenities, parking, and pet-friendliness but never reference a clubhouse-type facility. The absence of MLS clubhouse selections strongly supports that there is no clubhouse in this building.

Remarks focus on a resident manager and building security, with no indication of concierge or front-desk services. Combined with all MLS records leaving concierge unchecked, this supports a high-confidence conclusion that no concierge service is offered.

Remarks emphasize that La Casa is pet-friendly but never mention any dedicated dog-park or pet-run facility. The lack of MLS dog-park selections supports that there is no on-site dog park.

Across 20 listings, agents consistently highlight a resident manager and secure entry but never a doorman or lobby attendant. The absence of any such mention plus unchecked MLS data strongly indicates there is no doorman at this building.

Across all provided remarks there are no references to a gym, fitness room, or exercise facilities. Combined with the fact that agents have not checked the MLS exercise-room amenity, this strongly suggests the building does not offer a dedicated exercise room.

Despite being in a luxury-adjacent area, none of the agents describe any limousine, town car, or courtesy car service. The MLS data fully aligns with this, indicating the building does not provide limo or car service.

None of the remarks describe any dedicated meeting or conference space. Together with the MLS data, this indicates that La Casa does not offer a formal meeting room amenity.

At least 15 current remarks mention a lanai, balcony, or covered outdoor space, including phrases such as “spacious 104 sq. ft. lanai,” “large usable lanai,” and “open 104 SqFt lanai space.” Multiple independent remarks also explicitly describe the building’s “rooftop deck” or “large rooftop area” with ocean and sunset views, confirming this is a legitimate building amenity rather than isolated copy-paste.

The rooftop deck is large enough that an agent suggests you can 'jog around in a closed loop,' but it is not marketed as a formal jogging/walking path amenity. Given the lack of MLS indication of a jogging path, this appears to be casual use of the rooftop, not a dedicated path feature.

Listings do not advertise any children's playground or tot lot, which is typically highlighted in family-oriented buildings. The MLS data corroborates that there is no dedicated playground amenity.

None of the listings describe any private or fenced yard space—only lanais and a rooftop deck are mentioned. Given the high-rise urban setting and absence of PRIYAR in MLS, it is very likely the building does not offer private yard areas.

Agent comments focus on the rooftop deck, views, and proximity to the Ala Wai Golf Course but never mention an on-site putting green. With no MLS support, it is very likely the building lacks a putting green.

Remarks refer to a 'large rooftop deck' and 'serene rooftop amenities' where residents can relax, practice yoga, or jog in a closed loop, indicating a common recreation space. Even though the MLS RECARE box is not checked, repeated detailed descriptions from different agents confirm the presence of a usable recreation deck.

Agents consistently highlight only the rooftop and parking/manager features, with no references to a dedicated recreation or game room. The lack of MLS RECROO selections further indicates there is no separate recreation room.

Agents highlight proximity to many dining options and explicitly reference off-site restaurants and a café in neighboring buildings. Since no one describes an in-building restaurant or dining facility, the building should not be considered to have a restaurant amenity.

Multiple agents explicitly highlight a rooftop deck/area with sunset, ocean, and 360° views and note it as a place to relax, practice yoga, or jog. This repeated, detailed description across many listings provides very strong evidence that the building has common rooftop amenities accessible to residents.

At least some current listings (historical MLS: 5/20) explicitly mention a rooftop sauna—one remark even notes 'men & women's sauna!'—and multiple agent remarks reference rooftop amenities. The explicit wording supports inclusion with high confidence, though mentions are fewer than other amenities.

No listings' public remarks mention storage lockers, storage units, or dedicated storage areas (0/20). The MLS amenities checkbox shows STORAG/ADDLVSTORAG in 1/20 listings, but this appears isolated and likely a copy‑paste error; historical review was high confidence that the building does not offer storage lockers, so the feature is omitted.

The remarks mention parking, rooftop amenities, and proximity to beaches, but no dedicated surfboard or board-storage facility. Therefore this feature is not supported by the public remarks.

No agent comments describe tennis courts or tennis facilities. Given that no MLS listings report this amenity, it is highly likely the building has no tennis court.

At least 3 current remarks explicitly mention a "trash chute," including listings that describe it among La Casa's building amenities with the resident manager, loading zone, and car wash area. The feature appears in 17/20 current MLS records and is consistent with the previously high-confidence evidence.

Multiple remarks emphasize assigned and guest parking in a secured garage but never mention valet service. The combination of description and MLS data strongly indicates there is no valet parking at this building.

Agents specifically reference gated/secured parking and garage access, not a gated or fenced complex or perimeter wall. Given the unchecked MLS gated/wall-fence amenity and the parking-specific context of 'gated,' the evidence points to no building-level wall/fence enclosure.

Across all remarks there is no indication of any shared hot tub or spa facility in the building. Given the brand-name appliance reference and near-universal absence of the MLS whirlpool amenity, it is very likely the building has no whirlpool/hot tub feature.

Across 20 listings, none have a pool amenity checked in MLS and none of the remarks mention a pool, lap pool, or swimming pool. Instead, agents consistently highlight a rooftop deck/area, saunas, and guest parking, suggesting these are the primary amenities and confirming the building does not offer a pool.

There is no mention of a heated pool or heated swimming facility in any of the 20 listings or remarks, and MLS data shows no pool or heated-pool features checked. Given the clear evidence that the building lacks a pool, a heated pool can be confidently ruled out.

The remarks were searched for saltwater-pool terminology and no evidence was found. The current building context reports no pool, so a saltwater pool is not supported.

In-unit laundry is strongly supported across the listings: at least 17 of 20 current MLS records show washer/dryer inclusions, and well over 10 remarks explicitly mention the feature. Repeated phrases include 'in-unit washer and dryer,' 'washer/dryer in unit,' 'stack washer/dryer,' and 'private washer and dryer inside of the unit,' confirming that La Casa offers units with in-unit laundry.

Across all provided remarks, there is no reference to shared/community laundry, even when other amenities are described in detail, and 0/20 recent MLS entries flag a community laundry feature. Given the strong and repeated focus on in-unit washer/dryers instead, it is highly likely the building does not offer a separate community laundry facility. This appears to correct any prior assumptions that such a shared laundry might exist.

The remarks were searched for payment-related laundry terms and no evidence was found. The repeated references are to in-unit washers and dryers rather than paid community laundry.

The remarks were searched for explicit every-floor or each-floor community laundry wording, but none was found. Multiple listings specify in-unit laundry, which does not establish community laundry availability on every floor.

All 20 current MLS listings indicate the presence of parking, and multiple remarks reference a parking stall or a parking garage for each unit. Buyers can expect the building to provide on-site parking options.

Strong evidence that parking is assigned/reserved in this building. Multiple listings explicitly say 'assigned parking,' 'assigned covered parking stalls,' and 'reserved stall,' and the current MLS data shows 16/20 records with ASSIGN. The consistency across many remarks suggests this is a real building feature, not a copy-paste anomaly.

Covered parking is strongly confirmed across many independent listing remarks, with at least 15 listings explicitly describing covered or garage parking, including secured assigned stalls and a three-stall garage arrangement. The evidence is consistent with the historically high-confidence MLS data, although some listings only state '1 parking' without specifying coverage.

The remarks consistently support assigned parking but do not establish that parking is deeded. One listing says two stalls were 'purchased separately,' but this does not explicitly confirm deeded status under the feature definition.

Neither the MLS data nor any of the public remarks reference EV charging or stations. This strongly indicates that EV charging is not currently available in the building’s parking facilities.

A monthly parking charge of $40 is directly stated in the remarks. This provides high-confidence evidence for the parking fee.

Guest parking is well supported by the remarks and MLS data. Multiple listings reference 'guest parking available,' 'guest stalls,' and '8 guest parking stalls,' and 14/20 current MLS records include guest parking. This appears to be a consistent building amenity rather than a one-off note.

The building clearly has secured-entry parking. Listings mention 'secure gated garage,' 'gated parking,' 'secured parking,' 'keyed access,' and even cameras/keyed access for entry, with 13/20 MLS records reflecting secured entry. The evidence is consistent across multiple listings and agents.

Neither MLS data nor remarks mention tandem or back-to-back stalls, even in listings that describe parking in detail. This makes it very unlikely that tandem parking is a notable or offered configuration in the building.

All descriptions focus on assigned and guest stalls in a secured garage, with no reference to valet service. The consistent omission across all listings strongly indicates the building does not offer valet parking.

The searched remarks contain no evidence of a parking waitlist system. The available descriptions focus on assigned or secure parking, so no waitlist is supported.

Remarks explicitly say keyed access is required for elevator entry, indicating restricted elevator access. This is a clear, detailed, building-level description that outweighs the unchecked MLS amenity box.

Multiple listings consistently describe restricted building and elevator entry using keys or registered security access. This is strong evidence of a card, key, or fob-style access security system.

Across 20 listings, agents describe a resident manager, secure building/garage, and keyed access but never mention a security guard or 24/7 security. With MLS guard amenity unchecked on all listings and consistent omission in remarks, this is strong evidence that the building has no security guard service.

The remarks describe secured entrances, gated parking, cameras, and keyed access, but none mention personnel or vehicle patrol services. Secure access alone does not establish security patrol.

At least one listing clearly notes 'secured building with cameras,' which is a building-level feature, not unit-specific. Even though agents do not check the MLS security system box, the explicit camera mention provides high-confidence evidence of video surveillance in the building.

Across all provided remarks, cooling is only described via individual air conditioning units in specific rooms, with no mention of central air or a building-wide HVAC system. MLS checkbox data (0/20 for central AC) supports the absence of central AC, so the building is very likely not served by central air conditioning.

No listings explicitly mention split AC, ductless AC, or mini-split systems. The single current MLS split-AC inclusion appears unsupported by the remarks, while other AC references are generic or describe room-level units without identifying the system type.

Window AC is selected in 16 of 20 listings, and several independent remarks confirm room-based air conditioning, including AC in the bedroom and living room and 'Two AC units.' Although most remarks do not use the exact phrase 'window unit,' the strong MLS consistency and repeated room-AC descriptions support inclusion.

Concrete construction is strongly supported by MLS data, with 17 of 20 recent listings marking the building as CONCRE. None of the provided public remarks explicitly mention concrete construction, but the consistent building-level MLS designation and prior high confidence support retaining this feature.

Limited evidence: 6 of 20 MLS listings list 'DOUWAL' (double-wall). Public remarks do not mention double-wall or related construction details, so include as available/possible with low-to-moderate confidence — could reflect partial building areas or inconsistent agent checkbox usage.

None of the listings reference hollow tile walls or construction, either in checkboxes or narrative remarks. The building is instead repeatedly characterized through amenities (rooftop deck, garage, guest parking) typical of reinforced-concrete towers. This provides strong evidence that hollow tile is not a primary construction type here.

Moderate evidence: 6 of 20 recent MLS listings list 'MASSTU' (masonry/stucco). Public remarks across listings do not mention masonry or stucco (no phrases like 'masonry' or 'stucco'), so include as a possible building material with moderate confidence; may reflect partial or secondary materials or inconsistent agent reporting.

All 20 listings omit any reference to steel frame construction, and 17 instead explicitly mark concrete in the MLS checkboxes. The remarks describe a conventional Waikiki concrete condo tower with no mention of structural steel framing. This makes it very likely the building is not classified as steel frame construction in MLS terms.

1 of 20 current MLS listings explicitly lists 'SLAB' foundation; historical notes indicate a few agents previously selected slab. None of the public remarks discuss foundation type or a recent foundation change, so inclusion is based on limited MLS checkbox evidence and given moderate confidence.

No analysis available

None of the 20 listings mark wood frame construction, and no remarks use terms like 'wood frame' or describe a low-rise house-type structure. The consistent description of a secured, multi-story condo with rooftop deck and structured parking strongly indicates non-wood high-rise construction. This supports confidently excluding wood frame as the primary building construction.

4 of 20 MLS listings identify 'above ground' construction. Public remarks across listings do not describe a raised/pier structure or mention recent changes, so the evidence is limited to MLS checkbox entries across several agents and is treated as implied (moderate confidence).

Across all public remarks there are no references to 'brick exterior', 'brick construction', or similar wording. In the MLS materials data, brick is never selected for this building. Given local building norms and the lack of any brick-related descriptions, brick construction can be safely ruled out.

No listing identifies single wall construction, and none of the remarks use phrases like 'single wall' or 'old Hawaiian style'. Instead, they describe a secured, elevator-served condo with garage parking and rooftop amenities, which is inconsistent with single wall construction. This makes it virtually certain the building is not single wall.

A 30-day minimum rental policy means short-term rentals are not allowed under the provided definition. This is repeated across multiple listings and is high-confidence evidence that STR is prohibited.

Because str_allowed is false, this feature must also be false. No remarks mention participation in a hotel rental pool or similar program.

The prerequisite for a mandatory hotel pool is not met because STR is not allowed. The remarks also contain no evidence of mandatory rental-pool participation.

Multiple listings describe fee-simple ownership, including one stating 'Don’t miss this opportunity to own FEE SIMPLE one bedroom.' Among the 20 listings reviewed, none are marked leasehold, indicating the building offers fee-simple units and appears predominantly fee simple.

Across all provided listings, there are no mentions of leasehold tenure or lease terms, and the land tenure field never indicates LH. Combined with explicit fee-simple marketing, this strongly suggests the building does not have leasehold units.

No specific lease expiration year was found. The repeated fee-simple descriptions also indicate that leasehold tenure does not apply to these listings.

The remarks repeatedly and directly confirm VA approval and eligibility for VA financing. This is strong, consistent public evidence that the building is VA loan approved.

Multiple listings explicitly confirm full building insurance, directly matching the fully insured definition. The repeated statements, including '100% Insured as of 2026,' provide overwhelming evidence that this feature is true.

Historic MLS data previously flagged the building as having FIRSPR (high prior confidence), but across ~30 public remarks provided no listing text mentions 'sprinkler', 'sprinkler system', or 'fire suppression'. Only 1 of 20 current listings shows the FIRSPR amenity checkbox. Given the lack of explicit remarks and the isolated checkbox, the feature’s presence is uncertain—kept as possible but with low confidence.

I searched for language indicating that the building passed a fire/life safety evaluation or is fire-safety certified or compliant. Nothing in the remarks establishes that the evaluation passed, so this is set to false with medium-low confidence based on the absence of qualifying evidence.

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

Multiple listings and remarks explicitly cite ocean views and rooftop ocean panoramas (e.g., "sweeping ... ocean views", "rooftop deck with stunning ocean views"). Current remarks corroborate historical data (8 of 20 listings flag OCEAN in view_descriptions) and the evidence is strong across multiple agents/listings.

Strong evidence across many listings supports mountain views in this building. Multiple agents describe units with "mountain views," "mauka" orientation, and combined "city and mountain views," suggesting this is a recurring building feature rather than a one-off statement.

There is at least one clear listing remark stating “Gorgeous Diamond Head and city views from the spacious lanai,” supporting that some units provide Diamond Head views. While not ubiquitous across all remarks, the explicit mention plus prior high confidence indicates the building offers Diamond Head-view units.

City views are strongly supported across the listings, with 17 of 20 MLS records identifying CITY in the view descriptions. Numerous remarks from different listings explicitly mention sweeping city views, Waikiki city views, city and mountain views, and city views from private lanais or the rooftop deck; the evidence is broad and consistent rather than limited to a single copied remark.

While many remarks mention ocean and rooftop ocean/sunset views, none of the current remarks use the specific 'coastline/shoreline/coastal' terminology. Given consistent absence of that exact descriptor across multiple agent remarks, 'view_coastline' is not supported.

Across all provided listings, no agent ever references garden, courtyard, or landscaped views despite frequently describing other view types in detail. Combined with 0/20 GARDEN in MLS, this strongly indicates garden views are not a notable or distinct feature of this building.

There are explicit mentions of views of the Ala Wai Golf Course in several remarks (notably “Ala Wai Golf Course and canal views”), indicating some units overlook the golf course.

Multiple listings/remarks explicitly mention views of the Ala Wai canal/harbor (e.g., 'Ala Wai canal view', 'Ala Wai and canal views'), providing good building-level evidence that some units offer marina/canal/harbor views.

Several listings explicitly promote sunrise/eastern exposure (phrases like 'enjoy the sunrise', 'east-facing lanai', 'morning sun'), indicating multiple units/building orientations provide sunrise views.

Multiple current public remarks (at least 8 separate listing remarks in this batch) explicitly mention sunset views — key phrases include 'stunning sunset and Ocean views', 'rooftop deck perfect for panoramic sunsets', 'sweeping ocean and sunset views', and 'enjoy the sunset every day'. These sunset claims are repeated by different listing remarks and align with prior high-confidence historical data that rooftop and some lanais were marketed for sunset views, so evidence is strong and consistent across agents rather than a single copy/paste instance.

Multiple listings describe the immediate surroundings and views in detail, but no cemetery is ever referenced. Combined with 0/20 MLS cemetery flags and the urban Waikiki location, this strongly supports that the building does not have cemetery views.

The listings describe proximity to Waikiki attractions and the Friday night fireworks. Under the required definition, nearby fireworks do not establish a fireworks view from the units or building.

No analysis available

No analysis available

Over ten listings call the building 'pet friendly', including one specifying 'PETS ALLOWED - no restrictions' and several repeating 'Pet Friendly (verify)'. This consistent language across different agents confirms that pets are allowed in the building.

At least 10 current listings explicitly mention the feature, including "on-site resident manager," "resident manager," and "resident manager and guest parking." The repeated wording appears across multiple agents and is consistent with the historically high-confidence determination, strongly confirming that La Casa has a resident manager.

Listings market the property as a residential condo with at least a 30-day minimum rental and make no reference to hotel operations or a condotel program. Combined with MLS data, this strongly supports that the building is not a condotel.

The building is described as fee simple and there are no cooperative-ownership terms in any of the listings. MLS coding also lacks co-op indicators, so this building is almost certainly not a co-op.