Homebuyers can search for properties with any number of characteristics: the number of bedrooms, for example, or the number of baths. You can even search for such items as fireplaces, garages and first-floor master suites.

But when it comes to features that make a home green -- Energy Star-rated appliances, geothermal heat pumps, solar heating, low-flow toilets or other energy-related attributes -- buyers in most places usually draw a blank. The only place to find them is in the descriptive portion of the listing, if they are mentioned at all. Consequently, buyers who have an interest in these green features have to read the narrative attached to each house that meets some of their other search criteria to determine if the place also has the green items they desire.

Hopefully, that's about to change. The National Association of Realtors (NAR) has just published a comprehensive guide for helping multiple list services (MLSs) promote the special features of a green home -- attributes that, research indicates, buyers covet.

In Chicago, the local MLS was one of the pioneers in helping sellers promote their green features and helping buyers find them. A preliminary read of recent data from that city found that the 10 percent of the sellers who chose to list their energy costs sold their homes faster and at higher prices than other sellers.

And NAR's most recent Profile of Buyers and Sellers found that the environmental factors most important to buyers are those that directly impact their pocketbooks. Heating and cooling costs, for example, were at least "somewhat important" to 85 percent of buyers; 36 percent said fuel costs were "very important."

At the same time, two-thirds rated both energy-efficient appliances and lighting as "very" or "somewhat" important. And nearly half said the same about landscaping for energy conservation.

"The demand for green is growing," says NAR President Steve Brown, a broker in Dayton, Ohio. "NAR's research consistently shows that today's consumers want homes and communities that are environmentally sustainable and resource-efficient."

Still, at last official count in 2010, only 125 of the country's MLSs -- just "a handful," according to the new guide -- offered specific fields for green or high-performance homes. Now, NAR claims, 79 percent of the 100 most populous metropolitan areas have access to an MLS with green fields.

But adoption has been slow, according to two members of NAR's MLS committee.

"I think consumers are ahead of us," says Lauren Hansen, MLS committee member and CEO of Information and Real Estate Services (IRES), the regional MLS for northern Colorado.

IRES was the first MLS in the land to add green search fields, but it had to be dragged into offering them by the state, which required every MLS within its borders to do so.

At first, says Hansen, "I rolled my eyes" at the requirement. "But as it turned out, it took us to school." Now, would-be buyers can search not just by energy features but also by third-party certifications that confirm claimed energy savings, or confirm the existence of features like upgraded insulation.

Prior to the housing market meltdown, Jeff Lasky -- another MLS committee member and director of communications and training at Midwest Real Estate Data, the MLS for the Chicago area -- agreed with Hansen that agents were too busy listing and selling houses to worry too much about energy efficiency. But when the market slowed to a crawl, they started to pay closer attention.

"When things slowed down and inventory shrunk," says Lasky, "agents were forced into thinking outside the box if they wanted to obtain a listing. There was also a concern about liability. ... Like anything new, it takes some time."

"It's like a roller coaster that's still going uphill," agrees Hansen about the green listing movement.

Now, the coaster is approaching the top of the hill. And with the help of the new NAR guide, energy features should soon become standard protocol for every MLS in the country. "Accurate marketing and assessment of green homes can only move forward with more standardized language among MLSs," says NAR president Brown.

The guide is designed to provide a blueprint for MLS staff, or their software venders, to populate the listing service with green data-entry fields. If the MLS does not yet include these fields, the guide offers a step-by-step method for adding them. And if the MLS already offers such fields, the book will show them how to standardize their entries.

The new standardized green fields will also allow for apples-to-apples comparisons when appraising green homes and determining such market trends as time on the market and sales-to-list price ratios.

Of course, the real estate community has a stake in the information beyond helping sellers find buyers and helping buyers find properties. In that regard, the guide will help protect agents, appraisers and other users from liability for posting incorrect or unverifiable information based on claims made by overzealous sellers -- a practice known as "greenwashing."

Purchasing an apartment for Junior or Buffy at the college of their choice is often a sound investment.

Giving the offspring a place to live eliminates the cost of boarding the little darlings. And if the condo is large enough -- say, two or three bedrooms -- the extra rooms can be rented to other students to help defray the cost of ownership.

Moreover, over the four-year span until your child graduates -- and often a year or two longer these days -- your investment is likely to appreciate. Although rising values are not guaranteed, housing near universities and colleges is usually a scarce commodity. If that's the case where your kid chooses to matriculate, the law of supply and demand is the rule, not the exception.

Still, while buying a condo as an investment near a college is not terribly different from buying one elsewhere, a more thorough diligence is often due.

Here's one caution that probably never entered your mind: Is the campus likely to remain where it is and not move to another location?

Most likely, it will stay put. But it's not unheard of for a campus to be closed in one place and reopen somewhere else, says Dan Barnabic, author of "The Condo Bible for Americans" (Neon-Publishing Corp., 2013).

It's fairly simple to find out if a move's afoot sometime in the near future. Simply call the registar's office, or perhaps the school's president, and ask.

But remember, the time frame that you hold the place might be somewhat longer than four years, and even longer if owning a rental apartment turns out to be a strong investment -- as opposed to one that just breaks even, or worse, loses money.

The Toronto-based Barnabic, a former real estate agent, broker, manager and condo developer, also wants you to beware of buying into a financially troubled or poorly managed property.

"If there has been mismanagement or the building is in financial distress," he says, "you could wind up paying dollars to replace the dollars someone else squandered."

To prevent that, he suggests standing outside the building and asking residents as they walk in and out about their experiences. Are there any maintenance deficiencies? Is management responsive? Are battles raging between neighbors -- or perhaps more importantly, between board members who are elected to run the complex and make sure the rules are followed?

Next, obtain an estoppel certificate, a document similar to a survey for a single-family property, that shows the unit, the maintenance fees, the amount of the building's debt and any assessments that are either contemplated or already set in stone.

It is most important to pay attention to the annual budget. If the budget or reserve is underfunded, you as the owner will be responsible for making up your share of the shortfall.

The author also advises potential condo-buyers to obtain a status certificate on the unit they are thinking about purchasing and submit it to a knowledgeable attorney for a thorough investigation. Here, it is worth paying $100 or more to the board to cover your lawyer's fees to determine if there are any outstanding liens against the unit, and whether you will have to pay them.

If there are liens for unpaid monthly or quarterly dues, maybe the board will be open to negotiations to wipe the slate clean. This would let them turn an otherwise non-paying apartment -- a drag on the books -- into one that pays its dues and assessments on time without a peep.

Similarly, Barnabic says you should gain approval from the board, if it is necessary, to check with the municipal zoning and planning department to be sure there are no pending work orders or infractions against the condo complex for violations of local building codes.

And while you're at it, ask the zoning or permit department if there are any new buildings planned in close proximity to yours, either in this complex or adjoining ones. If there are, your unit's value could be diminished not only by obstructed views, but also because newer units are always more desirable.

Consider investing in those new properties as they go up. Remember, even budgets for brand-new buildings are underfunded, especially if the developer wants his place to look as good on paper as possible. If that's the case, your share could double or even triple when the builder finally turns the property over to the condo board.

One more thing: People who buy larger units with the idea that their sons or daughters will act as their on-site property managers sometimes find out later that that kind of arrangement just doesn't work. That's especially true, says Barnabic, when the people who lease the extra bedrooms are friends.

Kids, even those of college age, are not usually very good property managers, he says. "To do a proper job, they must be diligent in collecting rent, maintaining the apartment and refereeing inevitable disputes between roommates. In other words, they must be responsible, and that's not always the case."

When Lexington, Kentucky, broker Nick Ratliff purchased a short sale last fall, the seller informed him that she wasn't going to move out until a week after the closing, when her new apartment would be ready for occupancy.

To complicate the matter, the seller's lender said it wouldn't extend its approval of the sale beyond the scheduled settlement date.

Still, Ratliff held his ground, insisting that the bank either give the parties one more week to settle or that the seller move as originally planned. "We stood strong," he recalls. "And after a few conversations with the bank, we got the short sale approval extended and everything went fine."

But that begs the question: Why not just allow the seller to stay in the house another seven days? Wouldn't that have been easier? What's the harm?

As it turns out, allowing a seller to remain is not a very good idea, and it's one that realty professionals almost universally warn against. It's also not terribly wise to allow the buyer to move in prior to the closing, agents in the trenches advise.

"Anytime the situation comes up, I always ask my client if they want to rent the property or sell it," says Ratliff. "By allowing a buyer to move in prior to closing or letting a seller stay post-closing, both parties are entering into a landlord-tenant agreement. This changes the entire dynamic of the relationship and adds so many more potential outcomes to the process."

For sure, the result can be a positive one. But "too many disasters can happen," cautions Bruce Lynn of Keller Williams Realty in Coppell, Texas, who suggests "never allowing the buyer to move in early."

"NEVER, EVER," Lynn says emphatically. "And while we're at it: no early contractors, either."

One thing that could go wrong is the buyer's financing. Since the house would not be owner-occupied, at least not for the period beyond the closing when the seller remains, it would be an investment property, and the lender might balk at backing a rental.

At the very least, the terms of the loan might change, with the lender calling for a larger down payment and a higher interest rate.

Insurance could turn out to be a nightmare as well. The buyer's insurance probably won't go into effect until he actually takes occupancy, yet the seller's coverage lapses at closing. Consequently, there is no coverage during the delayed occupancy. So if there is a fire during that time, who's going to cover the damages?

OK, a fire may be stretching it a tad. But what if there's an accident on the property?

Consider these other drawbacks to letting a seller stay put post-closing:

-- What if the seller's deal on his new place falls through? He would have no place to go, and would likely refuse to move until he can find another residence.

Similarly, what if the seller loses her financing, or the closing on her new place is delayed? Again, she'd have little choice but to stay put, and the buyer could not take occupancy even though he is now the legal owner of the property.

-- What if the seller damages something during his extended stay, or an appliance breaks down? Who's going to pay for that: the new owner-as-landlord, even though she's never lived in the house, or the seller-tenant? Generally, it's the landlord's responsibility.

-- Suppose the tenant leaves the house a mess when he moves out, or fails to pay for the utilities or mow the lawn. Will the owner have any recourse?

-- What if the seller refuses to pay for the time he remains as a tenant? You've already closed, so the only recourse would be to take him to court.

-- What if the seller doesn't stay for as long as she said she would? Certainly, she'll want a rebate on her rent.

Similar questions arise when it comes to allowing the buyer to move in prior to the closing:

-- What if his financing falls through? Perhaps he no longer qualifies because his credit score has fallen, or maybe the house fails to appraise. In either case, he's already taken occupancy and you're no longer a seller -- you're a landlord.

-- What happens if the buyer discovers things she doesn't like, but never noticed until after moving in? Worse, what if she finds a major issue that by law should have been disclosed, but wasn't?

-- What if the buyer damages a house that is not yet his? Or what if his movers damage something while he is moving in?

-- What if the buyer refuses to pay for the time she occupies the house as a tenant? She's already in the place, and you'll have a difficult time evicting her for nonpayment of rent.

-- What if an item that should remain with the house -- a chandelier, for example, or curtains -- disappears between the time the buyer moves in and the closing? Who's responsible?

Fortunately, all of these issues can and should be addressed in a written rental agreement between the two parties. If you don't have a written agreement, says Ratliff, "any misunderstanding can take a good deal bad very quickly."

Obviously, there should be a firm and stated limit on the time the seller will remain. And the buyer should require that a substantial amount of the purchase price be withheld from the seller at closing to serve as security.

When the seller finally vacates the property, the money can be released -- but only following a second walk-through after the seller leaves. This way, if the house is damaged in any way, there will be money set aside to pay for the repairs.

Still, the best advice is to delay the closing until the seller can clear out. A rental agreement does not insulate you from responsibility for the property. Once the place is yours, it's yours, whether you have occupied it or not.

"The key is having all parties on the same page," says Retliff. "But the 'what-ifs' of these situations always scare me. When someone else is occupying your home for any period of time, you lose power ... I'm never going to encourage my client to do that."