I can tell you right now that if the roof is more than 10 years old, replacing it is a property improvement regardless of the reason. Anyone telling you otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about. Besides, if that roof really is 50 years old like you say, stating that it doesn't meet the building code is a bit of a misnomer. I say that because *if* there were any such building codes for roofs 50 years ago, it probably met that code just fine. Additionally, any halfway descent lender would have paid for a home inspection on the house as a part of the mortgage application process, and would have required a 50 year old roof to be bought up to code before they would approve the loan. So there's something going on here that we're just not aware of at this stage.
Last rental I purchased (I have 3 now) was back in 2003. It's roof was approaching the 20 year mark and it was still in descent shape. It didn't meet the "current" codes of the time. But it did meet or exceed the code in effect back in 1983 when it was put on. *House was build in the early 70's) For me it wasn't the mortgage lender that was the issue. It was the insurance company. They said if I put a new roof on it, they'd basically cut my yearly premium in half. So after closing on the loan I had a roofer all lined up to start on it the next day. WHen done an insurance adjuster came out and inspected it. A few weeks later I got a rebate check from the insurance company for around $900 or so. Also back in 2003 the new roof on this 2 BR 1BA house only cost $4500. That same house today would cost arount $12,000 to replace the roof. As I type this I'm keeping a close eye on hurricane dorian since that roof while still in good shape, is approaching it's end of life (20 yrs). So there's always the possibility that new roof will only cost me my insurance deductible.
