Title: What’s a “normal” length for construction loans these days?
Has anyone actually gotten a lender to visit the site and see why the schedule slips? Or do they just stick to their spreadsheets?
- In my case, lender never set foot on site. Just wanted photos and paperwork.
- I pushed for a 15-month term upfront—didn’t even try for 12, felt unrealistic.
- They were flexible with extensions, but charged extra fees. Not ideal, but better than rushing.
- Honestly, I think most lenders just want to see numbers line up. Site visits seem rare unless there’s a major issue.
- If you can, build in a buffer from the start. Weather and supply chain delays are just part of the deal now.
Never had a lender show up in person for us, either. I used to think someone would at least want to see the mud pit that was supposed to be our kitchen, but nope—just wanted photos (and not even the good angles). We went with 14 months, and even that felt like a stretch, but I just couldn’t see how anyone finishes in 12 unless they’re building a shed or something.
Did you have to jump through hoops for extensions? Ours acted like it was routine, but the fees added up quick. I totally agree on the buffer—weather delays and waiting on materials are just part of the game these days. I always wonder if lenders actually know how unpredictable construction is, or if they just look at their charts and shrug.
Curious if anyone’s ever actually seen a lender step onto a muddy lot... or is that just a myth at this point?
Curious if anyone’s ever actually seen a lender step onto a muddy lot... or is that just a myth at this point?
I’ve never seen it happen either—photos and maybe a drone shot seem to be the norm now. For extensions, here’s what’s worked for me: document every delay (weather, supply chain, etc.), keep your GC in the loop, and give lenders as much notice as possible. They’ll usually tack on fees, but if you can show it’s out of your control, sometimes they’ll waive or reduce them. Still, I agree—14 months is more realistic than 12 these days unless you’re building something super basic. The charts don’t tell the whole story... mud waits for no one.
The charts don’t tell the whole story... mud waits for no one.
I get what you mean, but I’ve actually had a lender rep show up for a site walk—boots and all. Not common, but it happens, especially with smaller banks or green-focused lenders. Sometimes that personal touch helps when you’re pushing for an extension or flexibility. Just depends who you’re working with, I guess.
I’ve seen that too, but I’m not sure it always translates to real flexibility when it counts. Maybe I’m just a bit jaded after a few projects where the lender’s rep was all smiles on site, then turned around and stuck hard to the original terms once delays hit. I get that smaller banks or mission-driven lenders can be more hands-on, but in my experience, the decision-makers are rarely the ones in muddy boots. The site walk feels more like a box-ticking exercise sometimes.
I wonder if the “personal touch” is more about optics than actual policy. At the end of the day, the loan committee’s risk appetite seems to matter more than who shows up on site. Maybe I’ve just had a run of conservative lenders lately... but I wouldn’t bank on face time alone getting you an extension. Would love to be proven wrong, though.