Why would it not be rentable? That’s an assumption that doesn’t stand on its face when you look at the unmaintained crackhouses landlords will rent easily because demand is so high for housing.
Does >0 money spent equal 100% deprecation over 30 years?
If the landlord spends a single penny in paint does that make up for getting an asset that’s considered zero value but still gets to be sold for hundreds of thousands?
Over 30 years all sorts of things would break, pipes, leaks, batteries corroding and leaking out, animals move in, windows broken, doors removed....
Detroit ruins show what zero money put into a building for 30 years looks like - gutted shells.
Show me an ad for a rentable place that has had zero money spent on the building for any maintenance for 30 years and I'll believe you.