In property finance, valuations are the bridge between optimism and reality. Developers forecast Gross Development Values (GDV), investors plan yields, and lenders base their decisions on surveyor assessments. But what happens when those numbers don’t align? A valuation gap — where the independent surveyor’s figure comes in lower than expected — can derail even the most carefully planned exit.
For borrowers, valuation shortfalls are not just inconvenient; they can be catastrophic. The refinancing facility may be smaller than required, sales proceeds may fall short of loan repayment, and lenders may lose confidence in the borrower’s plan. As we highlighted in The Cost of a Failed Exit, the financial and reputational damage of missed repayments can be severe. This article explores how valuation gaps occur, why they matter more in 2025, and the strategies developers can use to close the gap before it sinks their project.
Valuation gaps are not unusual. Developers naturally want to believe their scheme is worth more, while surveyors — tasked with protecting the lender — are trained to be conservative. The difference between a developer’s GDV forecast and a lender’s valuation is often 10–15%.
Several factors drive these discrepancies. Surveyors rely on comparable evidence, but in slower markets, sales data may lag behind the true demand curve. They also build in assumptions for marketing periods, legal completion times, and potential discounts. Developers, by contrast, see the uniqueness of their scheme and often assume it will command a premium.
In 2025, these tensions are sharper than ever. With buyers more price-sensitive, lenders more cautious, and markets moving unevenly across regions, valuation gaps are no longer exceptions but expectations.
Valuation gaps strike hardest at the point of exit.
For developers planning to sell units, a down-valuation reduces achievable GDV. A scheme underwritten at £12 million but valued at £10.5 million may no longer generate enough proceeds to clear the loan.
For those planning to refinance, the consequences can be even more acute. Lower valuations mean lower loan-to-value ratios, which can shrink the size of the refinancing facility. As we explored in Bridging to Mortgage: How to Transition Smoothly in 2025, rental yields and affordability tests already constrain refinancing. Add a valuation shortfall, and the numbers often collapse.
The result is a funding gap — the borrower must either inject more equity, sell units faster (often at discount), or restructure finance under pressure.
In late 2024, a developer completed a high-end residential scheme in the South East. Anticipated GDV was £6.5 million, based on local agent feedback. When the refinancing valuation arrived, the figure was £5.4 million — a full £1.1 million below forecast.
The refinance that was meant to clear the £4.5 million development facility and release equity was suddenly insufficient. The lender capped the new loan at £3.9 million, leaving a £600,000 shortfall. Without intervention, the borrower faced default.
Willow restructured the exit by combining partial sales of two units with a specialist refinance of the remainder. The development facility was repaid on time, the borrower avoided default interest, and the project remained profitable, albeit with slimmer margins.
The lesson: valuation gaps are survivable — but only with creative structuring.
The current market amplifies valuation risk. Lenders are applying sharper discounts, surveyors are more cautious, and comparables are influenced by the volatility of the past 24 months.
As discussed in Why Exit Risk Keeps Lenders Awake at Night, lenders want assurance that repayment strategies remain credible even in conservative scenarios. Borrowers who rely on best-case valuations may find their exit plans unravel before they begin.
For international borrowers, the issue is even more complex. Private banks often apply their own internal valuation criteria, sometimes diverging from independent surveyors. This can create additional hurdles for clients exiting onto private bank facilities, particularly those with complex income or offshore structures.
When valuation gaps emerge, borrowers have several tools at their disposal:
1. Equity Injection.
The simplest, though often most painful, solution is to inject additional equity. By covering the shortfall personally or through investors, the borrower bridges the gap and satisfies the lender. While it preserves credibility, it reduces returns and ties up capital.
2. Partial Unit Sales.
Developers can sell part of the stock to reduce the outstanding balance, then refinance the remainder. This hybrid model is increasingly common, allowing lenders to see tangible repayment while giving borrowers breathing space on the rest.
3. Alternative Lenders.
Specialist lenders may take a more pragmatic view of valuations, particularly if rental demand is strong or the borrower has a broader portfolio. While rates may be higher, these facilities can provide crucial flexibility.
4. Cross-Collateralisation.
As noted in
Cross-Collateral Property Finance in 2025, leveraging other assets can provide additional security, allowing lenders to increase facility size despite valuation gaps.
5. Restructuring Timelines.
In some cases, the best solution is simply more time. Negotiating short extensions or interim facilities gives borrowers the breathing room needed to realise sales at full value rather than forced discounts.
The best defence against valuation gaps is preparation. Developers should commission independent valuations early, even before approaching lenders. This highlights discrepancies and allows them to adjust GDV assumptions realistically.
Borrowers should also build in contingencies. Facilities should allow headroom for conservative valuations, not rely on the most optimistic outcome. By stress-testing exit plans against lower values, developers can ensure they remain viable even if the market softens.
Finally, engaging an experienced broker is critical. Brokers know how different lenders interpret valuations, which surveyors tend to be conservative, and how to present schemes to minimise risk. With the right advice, borrowers can structure deals that withstand valuation pressure.
At Willow Private Finance, we work with developers and investors to anticipate and overcome valuation gaps before they derail projects. Our team understands lender expectations, surveyor approaches, and structuring techniques that turn shortfalls into manageable solutions.
In one recent case, we helped a borrower facing a 15% down-valuation on a central London scheme. By engaging a specialist private bank and restructuring the exit into a phased refinance and part-sale strategy, we closed the funding gap and preserved profit.
In another, we advised a regional developer to commission an early valuation before applying for finance. The conservative figure was £800,000 below their projection. By adjusting leverage upfront, we secured a facility that remained robust through to completion, avoiding the disappointment of a shortfall later.
For borrowers, the message is simple: valuation risk is unavoidable, but it is also manageable. With planning, realism, and expert structuring, developers can navigate shortfalls without jeopardising repayment.
Book a free strategy call with one of our mortgage specialists.
We’ll help you find the smartest way forward—whatever rates do next.

Experience. Integrity. Trust.
About the Author — Wesley Ranger
Wesley Ranger is the Founder and Director of Willow Private Finance. With deep expertise in development and bridging exits, he has spent over 20 years guiding borrowers through valuation challenges that threaten repayment. Wesley specialises in structuring solutions — from part-sales to private bank refinances — that close gaps and protect both profit and credibility.
Important Notice:
This article is for information purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Property finance carries risk, including the risk of default or repossession if loans are not repaid. Exit strategies should be assessed carefully and tailored to individual circumstances. Always seek professional advice before entering into any finance agreement. Willow Private Finance is directly authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FRN: 588422).
