No, they are expenses incurred by the lender to keep the abandoned property in good condition and up to local codes, HOA covenants, and so on, as the case may be.  They're not something that is foreseen when the loan is made, nor are they "folded into" the loan.  Any mortgage has a stipulation in it that the borrower has to keep the property in decent condition (not sure if that would go as far as keeping the grass cut), in that it is the security for the loan, "collateral" if you will (though that term is not used WRT a mortgage).  If the borrower has "flown the coop", then the lender has to step in, to preserve the integrity of the property.  Keeping it looking good for future resale would also be a consideration.  A slovenly lawn or a property with siding coming off isn't appealing to a prospective buyer, unless they see it as a "fixer-upper" or "handyman's special", which would bring the price down at which it could sell.

You have to keep a house up, or it will go to rot.  Right now I've got gutters full of pine needles, neglected due to my late father's illness, and I'm going to have to get a work crew to come in next week and clean them out.  I can't tolerate heights and I don't know anything about cleaning gutters.

As with just about any term, “non recourse” can be interpreted a number of ways, generally as a cluster of related but sometimes incompatible meanings. I am not attempting here to make my usage conform to some particular legal jurisdiction or what have you – that is entirely irrelevant to understanding what usury is and is not. The way it is used throughout this FAQ is that in a non recourse contract it is not a violation of the contract terms for the ‘borrower’ to stop making payments on the loan, leaving the ‘lender’ to recover whatever he is entitled to recover from the collateral and the collateral alone. The ‘borrower’ has not violated the terms of the contract in this case, by definition: the agreement was that if the borrower stops paying, he is quit of all obligation under the contract. The lender gets to foreclose on the collateral to recover his entitlements and costs, and the lender’s recourse is to the collateral alone. If the collateral is worth more than the loan balance and any actual costs then the excess is due back to the borrower.

If the contract terms say that it is a violation of the contract for the borrower to stop paying and turn the collateral over to the lender, then the loan is a mutuum and any interest charged is usury. The lender may be limited to recovering his principal and interest from the collateral legally, but the borrower is understood to have violated the terms. This is not a ‘non recourse’ loan the way the term is used throughout this FAQ, though other people in other places may refer to this understanding as ‘non recourse’.

In short, there are (at least) two ways of understanding recourse. In the first way recourse refers to what the various parties to the contract are entitled to in the scenarios covered by the contract. It answers questions like “who gets what if the borrower stops making payments”, as a matter of what the agreement between the parties itself requires. In the second way, recourse refers to legal remedies under the positive law when someone breaks the agreement. “Recourse” in this second sense is not a part of what is agreed by the parties in the contract itself. This FAQ uses the term ‘recourse’ in the first sense, to refer to the terms of the contract itself.

This understanding comes from the Magisterium of the Church, not from any modern financial theory or practice. “Non recourse loan” just happens to be the closest term in common use these days capable of carrying the concept, and we are looking at the intrinsic nature of different kinds of contracts in order to understand usury.

As a practical matter, the fact that the borrower is entitled under the contract terms to ‘walk away’ means that it is in the lender’s best interests to make sure that the value of the collateral significantly exceeds the amount loaned. The lender – on this understanding of a non recourse loan – is taking a property interest in the collateral, and if the value of that property drops below the loan balance the borrower is perfectly within his rights, under the terms of the contract, to walk away and leave the lender holding the property.

Turns out the blog post

https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/usury-faq-or-money-on-the-pill/

Actually has a book

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1544688873/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1544688873&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20 />
and a PDF

http://schnecke.bombcar.com/random/usury.pdf

Unlike the blog post the book and PDF have references to Church teaching at the end.