Yeah, 12 months used to be the sweet spot, but lately I’m seeing lenders push for 15 or even 18 months too. Honestly, I think they know delays are almost guaranteed now. I always tell clients to pad the timeline if possible—nobody wants to pay those extension fees if they can help it. Funny thing is, I’ve had a couple banks quietly admit they expect projects to run over these days, but they still won’t budge on the paperwork. Go figure.
I swear, the extension fees are where they really get you. Last time I did a build, we budgeted for 14 months thinking we were being cautious—ended up needing 17 because the windows got stuck in customs. The bank rep acted surprised, but like... have they met the supply chain lately? These days I add at least two months to whatever my contractor says, just in case. It’s not paranoia if it keeps you from paying extra, right?
These days I add at least two months to whatever my contractor says, just in case. It’s not paranoia if it keeps you from paying extra, right?
Honestly, that’s just smart. On my last project, we planned for 12 months and hit 15 because our insulation supplier had a backlog. The bank seemed shocked, but material delays are almost standard now—especially if you’re sourcing anything eco-friendly or imported. Extension fees feel like a penalty for being realistic about today’s market... I’d rather overestimate than get stuck renegotiating mid-build.
I get where you’re coming from, but I’m not totally convinced that just padding the schedule is always the best way to handle it. You mentioned,
Extension fees feel like a penalty for being realistic about today’s market... I’d rather overestimate than get stuck renegotiating mid-build.
It’s tempting to just tack on a few months as a buffer, especially with all the supply chain issues lately. But in my experience, banks are getting more cautious about approving longer construction loan periods, especially if you’re not showing a solid reason for the extra time. They want to see detailed schedules and contingency plans, not just a blanket extension “just in case.” Sometimes, if you overestimate too much, it can actually raise red flags and slow down approval.
On one of my recent projects, we ran into a similar issue with eco-friendly materials—lead times were all over the place. Instead of just adding months to the timeline, we worked with the supplier to lock in delivery windows and built in specific contingencies for those items. It took more upfront coordination, but it helped us justify our timeline to the lender and avoid some of those nasty extension fees. Not saying it’s foolproof (nothing is these days), but lenders seemed to appreciate the transparency and planning.
I do agree that the market’s unpredictable right now, and no one wants to get caught short. But sometimes, a more detailed risk assessment and communication with both suppliers and lenders can save you from having to pay for time you might not actually need. Just my two cents—sometimes the “add a couple months” approach works, but it’s not always the only or best option.
It took more upfront coordination, but it helped us justify our timeline to the lender and avoid some of those nasty extension fees. Not saying it’s foolproof (nothing is these days), but lenders...
That makes a lot of sense, especially about banks wanting to see “detailed schedules and contingency plans.” I remember when we started our build, we just assumed 12 months was standard and padded it by two, thinking we were being smart. Turns out, the lender wanted itemized milestones and kept asking why we needed extra time for things like landscaping or cabinetry. We had to scramble to justify it all.
I’m curious—has anyone actually had a lender push back on the loan term and force you to shorten it? I wonder if that’s becoming more common or if we just got unlucky.
