Can you get a 90 percent commercial mortgage?

Can you get a 90 percent commercial mortgage is one of the most common questions we are asked, and the honest answer is that on most standard purchases a single lender advancing 90 percent of value against the property alone is rare. Commercial lending is more conservative than residential precisely because commercial assets are less liquid and their income can be lumpier, so lenders want the borrower to hold meaningful equity in the deal. That said, higher effective leverage is achievable in specific situations and through specific structures, and the realistic question is usually how close to 90 percent your particular deal can get, and at what cost.

This guide sets out the usual loan to value ceilings on commercial mortgages, why they sit where they do, the genuine routes to higher leverage, and how to think about the deposit gap that any shortfall in leverage leaves you to fund. We arrange these facilities as a broker and introducer across a panel of lenders; we are not a lender, every leverage and rate figure here is indicative and deal dependent, and nothing in this guide is financial advice or an offer of finance.

What loan to value can you actually get on a commercial mortgage?

Most commercial term lending sits well below 90 percent. On an investment purchase, where the loan is serviced by rent, lenders typically advance 60 to 75 percent of value, with the exact figure set by the asset, the income cover and the borrower. Owner-occupiers, where the loan is serviced by the trading business that occupies the unit, can often reach a little higher, sometimes 70 to 80 percent, because the lender takes comfort from the business being in the building and committed to it. A clean 90 percent against the property alone is outside the normal range.

Typical commercial mortgage loan to value ceilings (indicative)

Purchase type	Usual LTV ceiling	Why
Investment (let unit)	60 to 75 percent	Loan serviced by rent; lender wants income cover and equity buffer
Owner-occupier (trading)	70 to 80 percent	Business occupies and commits to the unit; stronger lender comfort
With extra security	Up to ~90 percent effective	Additional charge over another asset closes the gap
Property alone, 90 percent +	Rare	Lender wants the borrower to hold real equity at risk

These are ceilings, not entitlements: a deal reaches the top of its range only when the asset, the income cover and the borrower all support it. The interest cover test often bites before the loan to value ceiling does, because at high leverage the rent may not cover the larger interest bill by the margin the lender requires. So the practical limit on many deals is income, not the headline loan to value, and pushing toward 90 percent runs into that constraint quickly.

Why do commercial lenders cap leverage lower than residential?

Commercial property is less liquid and more variable than housing. If a lender has to recover its money after a default, an industrial unit can take longer to sell and its value depends heavily on the income and the local occupier market at that moment, both of which can move. A larger equity buffer protects the lender against a fall in value between lending and recovery, so commercial lenders deliberately keep loan to value lower than residential lenders do, where the collateral is more uniform and more liquid.

A lender lending against the property alone always wants the borrower to have skin in the game. Equity at risk is what aligns the borrower with the asset.

Income volatility reinforces the caution. A let unit can fall vacant, a tenant can fail, and the rent that services the loan can stop, so lenders size the debt to be serviceable with a margin of safety and to be recoverable from a sale at a stressed value. At 90 percent leverage both buffers are thin, which is why lenders are reluctant to go there against the property alone, and why the routes to higher effective leverage nearly always involve adding something to the deal rather than simply persuading a lender to lend more against the same security.

How can you get closer to 90 percent leverage?

The reliable routes add security or restructure the stack rather than stretching a single charge. Additional security is the most common: a lender will often advance a higher proportion of a purchase price if it also takes a charge over another property the borrower owns, because its total exposure is then covered by more asset value. The headline loan to value against the new unit can look like 90 percent or more, but the lender's real loan to value across both assets is comfortably lower.

1. Add supporting security

   Offer a charge over another property you own so the lender's exposure is covered across more than one asset; effective leverage on the target unit rises.

2. Use an owner-occupier route

   If your business will occupy the unit, lenders often lend more against the trading covenant than against a let investment.

3. Layer in mezzanine

   A senior loan plus a mezzanine layer above it can lift the combined advance, at a higher blended cost, for experienced borrowers.

4. Bridge the gap short-term

   Where the equity is coming but not yet available, short-term finance can bridge it, repaid on refinance once the position settles.

A mezzanine layer is the structural route. A senior lender provides the bulk of the loan at a keen rate, and a mezzanine lender sits above it, taking more risk for a higher return, to lift the combined advance closer to 90 percent of cost. It raises the blended cost of the money and is generally reserved for experienced borrowers on schemes that can carry it, but it is a genuine way to reach high leverage. Our mezzanine finance guide at /knowledge/mezzanine-finance-explained/ explains where it sits in the capital stack, and our acquisition finance page at /services/acquisition-finance/ covers structured purchases.

Can you get a 100 percent commercial mortgage?

Effectively not against the property alone. A lender lending 100 percent of value with no other security would carry the entire risk of any fall in value or income while the borrower carried none, and that arrangement is not one mainstream commercial lenders offer. Where 100 percent funding appears to happen, it is almost always because additional security has been provided, so that the lender's real exposure across all the charged assets is well below 100 percent of any single one.

The same caution applies to high-leverage structures generally. Reaching 90 percent or more effective leverage is sometimes the right answer, for an owner-occupier with a strong business and another property to support the deal, for example, but it concentrates risk, and a fall in value or a void can erode thin equity fast. We model these structures with the downside in view, because the question is not only whether high leverage is possible but whether it is wise for the specific borrower and asset.

How do you handle the deposit gap?

Whatever leverage you reach, the gap between the loan and the price is the deposit you must fund, and it is the real constraint on most deals. The cleanest way to handle it is simply to size the purchase to the equity you have, buying a unit whose price, after the loan available, leaves a deposit you can comfortably fund along with the costs of buying. Our deposit and loan to value calculator at /calculators/deposit-ltv-calculator/ converts a price and target loan to value into a deposit, and our dedicated deposit guide at /knowledge/commercial-mortgage-deposit/ goes deeper.

Where the equity exists but is tied up, in another property, or arriving from a sale that has not yet completed, short-term finance can bridge the timing, repaid once the equity is released. That is a legitimate use of bridging, distinct from using leverage to paper over a genuine shortage of equity. The deposit guide and our commercial mortgage service at /services/commercial-mortgages/ cover the sensible structures. The underlying discipline is the same throughout: decide what total leverage the deal can safely carry, then fund the rest as equity, rather than starting from a leverage figure and forcing the deal to fit it.