The problem imo is that blockchain works well when you have to deal with data that is generated according to certain condition defined by the protocol, for physical / material assets not so much, unless the information can be verified by the whole network which is very unlikely for real estate, and it ends up depending on trusted third parties so blockchain are more going to be a waste than anything.
Blockchain for real estate is a meaningless combination, I suspect are made up to attract investors with a buzzword.
Fir s of all, I hardly doubt you'll ever need a blockchain for any
non-monetary application non Bitcoin application.
Secondly, as @IadixDev correctly stated, the oracle and his fairness represent a crucial weak point in any blockchain/physical world interaction.
A block chain can record abstract data and signatures. With only that, an entry in the block chain can indicate a transfer of title from one entity to another. That could be useful if it removes the requirement of a trusted third-party to record the transfer. Whether or not the information about the title and its relationship to the physical world can be verified by the network is not relevant to this specific utility.
Without justifications, your statements are rooted in a fallacy called an argument from incredulity. They state that something is not possible or not useful because I cannot personally conceive of the possibility or the utility.
On the other hand, there are strong arguments that support the claim that a block chain whose value is derived from something beyond its internal value is fragile. That is why many people believe that Defi block chains and even Ethereum are doomed to failure.