Property and Development Finance: Key Legal Issues for Borrowers and Lenders

Property and development finance sits at the heart of most real estate projects in England and Wales, from small residential schemes to large mixed-use developments. If the funding structure or documentation is wrong, borrowers risk cost overruns, enforcement action or even losing the asset, while lenders risk unenforceable security, delays in recovery and regulatory exposure.

Rising construction costs, a more interventionist regulatory environment (including building safety reforms and the phased implementation of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025), and tighter real estate finance conditions in 2026 mean both sides need to be more careful than ever. This article outlines the key legal issues borrowers and lenders should consider when negotiating and documenting property and development finance in England and Wales.

Terminology

In this article, the term borrower is used to cover developers, investors, landowners or SPVs who take out property or development finance secured on real estate. The term lender is used for banks, challenger banks, non-bank lenders and private debt funds providing those facilities.

The Transaction Context

Typical property and development finance in 2026 involves one or more of:

• Acquisition finance to buy land or an income-producing asset.
• Development finance to fund construction, refurbishment or change of use.
• Bridging finance to cover short-term needs pending sale, refinance or planning outcomes.

Facilities are normally secured against the property by way of legal mortgage or fixed charge, supported by debentures, guarantees, step-in rights and sometimes share charges over the borrower SPV. The legal risk profile is shaped by planning status, title quality, construction arrangements, pre-lets or pre-sales, regulatory compliance (particularly building safety and residential letting reforms) and the robustness of the financial covenants and security package.

The Legal Framework

Real estate finance transactions in England and Wales sit within a combination of:

• General contract law principles governing facility agreements, guarantees and security documents.
• Property law, including legal and equitable mortgages, registration requirements at HM Land Registry and priority rules under the Land Registration Act 2002.
• Corporate and insolvency law, which determine the effect of security, ranking, enforcement and potential challenges (e.g., preferences or transactions at an undervalue).
• Financial regulation, including the FCA regime where lending is regulated (particularly for consumer or small-scale residential borrowers) and anti-money laundering obligations.
• Sector-specific regimes such as building safety law and the evolving residential lettings framework under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, which impact scheme viability and compliance.

The overarching trend in 2026 is towards more scrutiny of borrower structures, compliance risk and exit strategies, particularly for residential and mixed-use schemes.

Key Legal Issues for Borrowers

1. Borrower structure and recourse

Lenders will usually require a clean SPV borrower with no other business or liabilities, in order to ring-fence the asset and simplify enforcement. Borrowers need to understand whether the facility is limited-recourse to that SPV or whether personal or group guarantees, indemnities and cross-collateralisation extend risk across the wider group or individual investors.

Where personal guarantees are required, borrowers should pay close attention to the scope of liabilities covered, any caps, conditions for release, and the circumstances in which the lender can demand payment. Misunderstanding the breadth of recourse is a common source of dispute if schemes underperform.

2. Conditions precedent and drawdown mechanics

Development and investment facilities usually have detailed conditions precedent (CPs) covering:

• Title and searches.
• Planning permissions and section 106 agreements.
• Building contracts, professional appointments and collateral warranties.
• Reports on construction, valuation, environmental and legal due diligence.

For borrowers, the practical risk is timing and deliverability; if CPs cannot be satisfied before longstop dates, funding may never be drawn, leaving a project stranded. Staged drawdown mechanisms also need to align with the cash-flow profile of the build, valuation milestones and any pre-sales or pre-lets, to avoid funding gaps mid-project.

3. Financial covenants, events of default and cure rights

Borrowers should focus on:

• Loan-to-value (LTV) and interest cover covenants, including how values are tested and what happens on revaluation.
• Information covenants and reporting obligations.
• Events of default triggers, including cross-default, material adverse change and breach of project documents.

Negotiating cure periods, equity injection rights or standstill mechanisms can provide breathing space if covenants are breached due to temporary market movements or construction delays. Without these protections, a technical breach can allow early enforcement even where the project remains fundamentally viable.

4. Security, intercreditor and ranking issues

Borrowers often underestimate the complexity of security packages and ranking arrangements where there is more than one lender. Key issues include:

• First-ranking legal charge over the property and additional security over rental income, bank accounts, shares and intra-group debt.
• Negative pledge and restrictions on further borrowing or disposals without lender consent.
• Intercreditor agreements between senior, mezzanine and bridging lenders, dealing with standstill periods, payment waterfalls and enforcement control.

Borrowers should ensure they understand when each lender can enforce, how proceeds are applied and whether subordinated creditors can block a consensual restructuring or sale. Poorly aligned intercreditor terms can delay exits and increase costs at the worst possible time.

5. Regulatory and compliance risk

From 2026 onwards, development and investment schemes increasingly need to account for:

• Building safety duties for higher-risk residential buildings, including gateway approvals and ongoing management obligations.
• Renters’ Rights Act 2025 changes to private tenancies, including abolition of section 21, new rent controls and strengthened tenant rights, impacting income assumptions.
• Enhanced energy efficiency expectations (EPC C by 2030) and related retrofit or design implications.

If a scheme’s business plan depends on non-compliant letting structures or optimistic assumptions about regulatory burden, both borrowers and lenders may face covenant stress or refinancing challenges later on.

Key Legal Issues for Lenders

1. Due diligence and title risk

Lenders need robust legal due diligence on:

• Title (including easements, covenants, restrictions and overage).
• Existing leases or occupational arrangements.
• Planning and building regulation status.
• Existing security and priority at HM Land Registry and Companies House.

Defects such as undisclosed rights of way, restrictive covenants or unresolved building safety issues can materially impact value and enforceability. Lenders should ensure these are either remedied, expressly risk-priced, or covered by appropriate indemnity insurance before drawdown.

2. Monitoring construction and cost overrun risk

For development finance, lenders face planning, construction and market risks that can derail repayment. Common protections include:

• Independent monitoring surveyor (IMS) reports and sign-offs before each drawdown.
• Fixed-price or guaranteed maximum price contracts, where achievable.
• Collateral warranties and step-in rights against key contractors and professionals.
• Contingency allowances and cost overrun equity commitments from the borrower.

Without clear contractual rights to halt drawdowns, re-test viability and require additional equity, lenders may be forced to fund into a failing project or face a half-built asset on enforcement.

3. Exit strategy and market conditions

Lenders must be satisfied that there is a realistic exit via sale or refinance, taking into account:

• Interest rate environment and credit conditions.
• Demand for the end product (rental or sale), including the impact of 2025–2026 residential reforms.
• Tax and regulatory changes that may affect investor appetite and yields.

In 2026, real estate finance commentators highlight a more selective lending market, with a premium placed on well-structured schemes, strong sponsors and conservative leverage. Facility documentation should link drawdowns and covenants to a clearly articulated exit plan rather than relying on optimistic assumptions.

4. Enforcement, step-in and restructuring options

Lenders should ensure that security documents and intercreditor arrangements give them workable options if things go wrong, including:

• The ability to appoint fixed charge or LPA receivers or enforce through an administrator.
• Step-in rights under development and professional team contracts.
• The flexibility to restructure, extend or sell part-completed assets without disproportionate delay or consent hurdles.

Careful drafting reduces the risk of disputes about control when a project is distressed and helps preserve value for all stakeholders.

Practical Points for Borrowers and Lenders

Some practical steps both sides should consider before finalising property or development finance include:

• Align structure with risk: Choose an SPV and security structure that reflects the size and risk profile of the scheme, while being enforceable and tax-efficient.
• Stress-test assumptions: Model interest rate scenarios, construction delays and cost overruns and test covenants against more conservative outcomes.
• Integrate planning and regulatory risk: Ensure planning, building safety and residential regulation requirements are factored into the legal and financial structure from the outset, not as an afterthought.
• Document responsibilities clearly: Use well-drafted facility agreements, security documents, development agreements and intercreditor arrangements that allocate risk transparently.

Errors or omissions in these areas can significantly increase the chances of dispute, default or value erosion later in the project lifecycle.

Final observations and how we can help

We provide enquiries with an indicative scope of work and fee estimate, based on the information you share. We aim to respond within one working day.

Photo by Sam Kimber on Unsplash

* VAT is charged at 20%

This article is intended for general information only, applies to the law at the time of publication, is not specific to the facts of your case and is not intended to be a replacement for legal advice. It is recommended that specific professional advice is sought before relying on any of the information given. © Jonathan Lea Limited.