For family offices and ultra-high-net-worth individuals, offshore ownership of residential property has long been a strategic choice. Prime homes in London, Monaco, the South of France, and other global centres are frequently held via offshore companies, trusts, or layered holding vehicles designed to support tax planning, privacy, succession, and asset protection.
In recent years, however, financing property held in offshore structures has become more complex. Regulatory scrutiny has increased, transparency requirements have tightened, and lenders have refined how they assess risk where ownership is removed from the individual level.
Despite these changes, offshore-held residential assets remain highly financeable in 2025—provided they are structured correctly and presented with clarity. The challenge for family offices is no longer whether finance is available, but how to navigate lender expectations without undermining the original objectives of offshore ownership.
Willow Private Finance works closely with family offices, private banks, and specialist lenders to structure lending against offshore-held residential assets in a way that preserves discretion, satisfies regulatory requirements, and aligns with long-term wealth and succession planning.
Offshore ownership is rarely accidental. Family offices typically use offshore structures to achieve specific objectives, including estate planning efficiency, intergenerational transfer, confidentiality, and asset ring-fencing.
In jurisdictions such as the UK and France, offshore vehicles have historically been used to separate ownership from personal exposure, particularly where properties are held as long-term legacy assets rather than investment stock. Trusts and holding companies can also simplify governance where assets are shared across multiple family members or generations.
While tax treatment has evolved and some historic advantages have narrowed, offshore structures remain relevant—especially where succession, control, and long-term planning take precedence over short-term efficiency.
Lender appetite for offshore-held residential property has not disappeared, but underwriting standards have tightened significantly. In 2025, lenders place far greater emphasis on transparency, substance, and governance than they did a decade ago.
Private banks and specialist lenders now expect full visibility on beneficial ownership, source of wealth, and the rationale behind the offshore structure. Structures that are clearly documented, professionally advised, and aligned with legitimate planning objectives are generally acceptable.
By contrast, opaque or outdated structures—particularly those lacking clear governance or economic substance—are more likely to face delays, pricing penalties, or outright rejection. The issue is rarely the offshore jurisdiction itself, but whether the structure stands up to modern regulatory and reputational scrutiny.
When financing residential assets held offshore, lenders assess several layers of risk beyond the property itself.
Ownership clarity is paramount. Lenders require a transparent chain of ownership, confirmation of ultimate beneficial owners, and legal opinions confirming enforceability of security. Trust structures, in particular, must demonstrate clear authority for borrowing and asset charging.
Jurisdictional risk is also assessed carefully. Established, well-regulated offshore centres are viewed more favourably than less transparent jurisdictions. Lenders consider legal reliability, political stability, and the ease of enforcing security if required.
Finally, lender focus extends to reputational risk. Family offices with strong governance, reputable advisors, and a long-term planning narrative are significantly more attractive than structures that appear transactional or defensive.
Despite the strength of prime residential assets, leverage remains conservative when offshore structures are involved. In 2025, loan-to-value ratios typically range between 30% and 50%, depending on asset quality, jurisdiction, and ownership complexity.
Lower leverage serves several purposes. It mitigates enforcement risk, supports longer tenors, and reassures credit committees that the facility is strategic rather than aggressive. Many family offices intentionally borrow below maximum available LTV to preserve optionality.
Facilities are commonly interest-only and may be structured at holding-company level, with guarantees or covenants aligned to trust or family governance frameworks. In some cases, lenders prefer cross-collateralisation across multiple assets to dilute single-asset risk.
Private banks often remain the first port of call for offshore-held property finance, particularly where broader wealth is already managed within the institution. They can offer competitive pricing but may require asset consolidation, increased reporting, or on-platform liquidity.
Specialist lenders play a crucial role where structures are complex or privacy is paramount. They are often more flexible on offshore entities, trusts, and non-standard ownership vehicles, albeit sometimes at a modest pricing premium.
For many family offices, the optimal solution involves engaging both—using specialist lenders for asset-specific finance while maintaining private banking relationships for liquidity management and long-term planning.
Willow Private Finance operates independently across both markets, ensuring structuring decisions are driven by strategy rather than institutional constraint.
Offshore ownership often coincides with cross-border portfolios. Properties may sit in one jurisdiction, ownership vehicles in another, and family interests elsewhere entirely.
Lenders assess this complexity carefully. Legal opinions must confirm enforceability across borders, and currency mismatches between assets, liabilities, and income streams are stress-tested.
Early coordination between legal, tax, and finance advisors is critical. Poor sequencing—such as attempting to arrange finance before aligning governance or trust documentation—remains one of the most common causes of delay.
A frequent mistake is assuming that historic offshore structures remain fit for purpose. Many were created in a different regulatory era and require updating to meet modern lender expectations.
Another pitfall is underestimating the importance of narrative. Lenders want to understand why the structure exists, why borrowing is being introduced, and how it supports long-term planning. Facilities presented without context are often viewed defensively.
Finally, some families delay advice until lenders raise objections. Proactive structuring almost always results in better pricing, smoother execution, and fewer compromises.
Willow Private Finance specialises in complex, high-value property finance for family offices and UHNW clients. We work closely with private banks and specialist lenders to structure borrowing against offshore-held residential assets that satisfies regulatory scrutiny while preserving discretion and control.
Our role is strategic as well as transactional. We collaborate with legal and tax advisors to ensure lending aligns with estate planning, governance, and long-term asset strategy. Whether restructuring legacy offshore vehicles or introducing new borrowing facilities, our focus is on durable, low-risk solutions.
Offshore ownership is no longer a barrier to residential property finance—but it is no longer passive either. In 2025, successful borrowing requires clarity, substance, and professional coordination.
For family offices willing to engage proactively, offshore-held residential assets remain powerful balance-sheet tools, capable of supporting liquidity, succession planning, and strategic investment without forced sales or loss of control.
Q1: Can residential property held offshore still be financed in 2025?
Yes. Many private banks and specialist lenders finance offshore-held residential assets, provided ownership is transparent and professionally structured.
Q2: What loan-to-value ratios apply to offshore-held property?
Most lenders operate between 30–50% LTV, depending on asset quality, jurisdiction, and structural complexity.
Q3: Are trusts acceptable to lenders?
Yes, but lenders require clear authority to borrow, legal opinions, and robust governance documentation.
Q4: Do offshore structures increase interest rates?
Pricing may be marginally higher due to complexity, but well-structured cases often secure competitive terms.
Q5: Is restructuring an offshore vehicle sometimes required?
Often, yes. Updating legacy structures can significantly improve lender appetite and execution speed.
Book a free strategy call with one of our mortgage specialists.
We’ll help you find the smartest way forward—whatever rates do next.
About the Author
Wesley Ranger is the Director of Willow Private Finance and has over 20 years of experience advising family offices and ultra-high-net-worth individuals on complex property finance. He specialises in lending against offshore-held assets, trust-owned property, and multi-jurisdiction portfolios, working closely with private banks, specialist lenders, and professional advisors to deliver robust, compliant financing structures.
Important Notice
This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute personal financial, legal, or tax advice. Financing property held in offshore structures involves complex regulatory, legal, and jurisdictional considerations that vary by circumstance.
Lending availability, eligibility, and terms depend on individual circumstances and lender criteria and may change at any time. Independent legal and tax advice should always be sought before proceeding.
Willow Private Finance Ltd is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA No. 588422). Registered in England and Wales.
