What Is the Difference Between a Fund and a Single-Asset RV Park Deal?
CC0, via Wikimedia Commons
If you want control over a specific property and you're willing to do the work of vetting one deal closely, a single-asset RV park investment fits better. If you want diversification across several parks and you're comfortable handing decisions to a sponsor, a fund fits better. Neither one is the "advanced" version of the other. They just solve different problems.
The short version
| Single-Asset Deal | Fund | |
|---|---|---|
| What you own | A stake in one specific RV park | A stake in a pool of several parks (often bought over time) |
| Diversification | None. One property, one market, one risk profile | Spread across multiple properties and sometimes multiple markets |
| Transparency | You can see the exact property, rent roll, and site plan before you invest | You often invest before all assets are acquired, so you're trusting the strategy more than a specific property |
| Minimum check size | Varies widely, often $25,000 to $100,000+ | Often similar or slightly higher, sometimes with a longer commitment period |
| Fees | Typically an acquisition fee plus a promote on that one deal | Similar fee stack, but may include a separate fund management fee layered on top |
| Hold period | Usually 3 to 7 years, tied to one business plan | Often longer, since capital gets deployed and harvested across a rolling pipeline |
| Risk concentration | High. Everything rides on one park's performance | Lower per-asset, but you're trusting the sponsor's judgment across multiple decisions instead of one |
Where single-asset deals win
With a single-asset deal, you can actually underwrite the thing. You get the occupancy history, the site plan, the local market data, and the sponsor's specific plan for that property. If you know how to read a rent roll or you have someone who does, you can form your own opinion about whether the numbers make sense. That's not really possible with a fund, because you're often investing in a strategy and a track record rather than a property you can inspect.
Single-asset deals also tend to be more transparent about where the money goes. You know the purchase price, the renovation budget, and the exit assumptions for that one park. If the sponsor says they're adding 20 full hookup sites and raising rates by 15%, you can check that claim against comparable parks in the area. There's a direct line between the pitch and the outcome.
The tradeoff is concentration. If that one park gets hit by a bad flood season, a major employer leaving the area, or a competing park undercutting rates, your entire investment feels it. There's no other asset absorbing the hit.
Where funds win
A fund spreads your money across several parks instead of one. If one property underperforms because of weather, a slow lease-up, or a local market downturn, the other properties can offset it. For investors who want outdoor hospitality exposure without betting on a single location, this matters a lot.
Funds also let a sponsor move faster. Instead of raising capital one deal at a time, the sponsor can line up capital ahead of acquisitions and move on opportunities as they come up, sometimes getting better pricing or terms because they're not scrambling to raise money deal by deal. That speed can translate into better deal flow for investors, assuming the sponsor has the sourcing relationships to back it up.
The tradeoff is reduced visibility. You're often investing before the fund has acquired all its properties, sometimes called a "blind pool" structure, which means you're trusting the sponsor's judgment on future acquisitions rather than evaluating a specific deal in front of you. You're also trusting that the fee structure, which may include a fund-level management fee on top of per-deal fees, is reasonable for what you're getting.
What this looks like in practice
In the RV park and outdoor hospitality space specifically, single-asset deals are more common than funds right now. Most sponsors in this niche are buying one park, executing a specific value-add plan like adding sites, upgrading utilities, or repositioning the park's customer mix, and then selling or refinancing within a few years. That's partly because good RV park deals are still somewhat scattered and relationship-driven rather than flowing through institutional pipelines, which makes it harder to build a reliable multi-asset pipeline fast enough to fill a fund.
Funds do exist in this space, usually run by sponsors who've already closed several single-asset deals and have the track record and deal flow to justify asking investors to commit capital before specific properties are identified. If you're looking at a fund in this niche, it's worth asking directly how many properties the sponsor has actually closed on using this structure versus how many they're projecting to acquire. A sponsor with one or two completed single-asset deals asking you to trust them with a blind pool fund is a different conversation than one with a longer track record.
One practical note: fee stacking matters more in funds than people expect going in. An acquisition fee on each property purchased, plus a fund management fee, plus a promote on the back end, can add up to a meaningfully higher total cost than a single comparable deal. It's not automatically a bad structure, but it's worth running the math on total fees as a percentage of your invested capital before committing, rather than looking at each fee in isolation.
FAQ
Is a fund automatically safer because it's diversified?
Not automatically. Diversification across multiple properties reduces the impact of any single property underperforming, but it doesn't eliminate sponsor risk. If the sponsor makes poor acquisition decisions across the board, or mismanages the fund's capital deployment timeline, diversification doesn't protect you from that. The quality of the sponsor's judgment matters more than the structure itself.
Can I negotiate terms on a single-asset deal the way I might with a fund?
Generally no, for either structure. Most syndications and funds offer standardized terms to all investors at a given tier, though larger checks sometimes get access to different share classes with different fee structures or minimum return hurdles. It's reasonable to ask whether that flexibility exists, but don't expect individual negotiation on a retail-sized investment in either format.
How do I know if a sponsor's single-asset track record is strong enough to trust a fund from them?
Ask for the actual performance of their completed deals, not just the deals currently in progress. Look at whether their actual results matched their original projections on occupancy, rate growth, and exit timing. A sponsor who's willing to share the good and the bad outcomes from past single-asset deals, rather than just highlighting the wins, is giving you a more honest basis for deciding whether to trust them with a fund structure.
If you're comparing specific deals or funds in the RV park space and want a second set of eyes on the underwriting, that's the kind of question Invest With Zac gets regularly, and it's worth asking before you wire money, not after.
Curious about RV park investing?
Learn how the asset class works before you put a dollar into it.
Learn more