That's been my experience too. When I bought my last place, it was an older property with some zoning quirks that made the big banks nervous. Ended up going with a local credit union—way less hassle, fewer hoops to jump through. They actually took the time to understand the situation instead of just ticking boxes. Definitely worth checking out smaller lenders if your situation doesn't fit the standard mold.
"They actually took the time to understand the situation instead of just ticking boxes."
Couldn't agree more. I've seen this happen frequently, especially with properties that have unique zoning or historical designations. Big banks often rely heavily on standardized underwriting criteria, which can overlook the nuances of certain properties. Smaller lenders or credit unions tend to have more flexibility and local knowledge, allowing them to assess risk differently. It's always beneficial to explore multiple lending options, particularly if your property doesn't neatly fit conventional guidelines.
I get where you're coming from. When I was buying my first place, it was an older home with some quirks—not exactly a historical landmark, but definitely not cookie-cutter either. The big banks I approached initially gave me the runaround because the property didn't fit neatly into their standard lending criteria. It felt like they were just checking boxes on a form and weren't interested in understanding the actual house or neighborhood.
Eventually, a friend recommended trying a local credit union, and it made a huge difference. They actually sent someone out to look at the property, talked through some of my renovation plans, and asked about local comps that made sense. It was refreshing to have someone genuinely interested in understanding the unique aspects instead of just plugging numbers into a spreadsheet.
"Smaller lenders or credit unions tend to have more flexibility and local knowledge."
Totally true in my experience. Still, I'm curious about one thing—does going with a smaller lender or credit union usually mean higher interest rates or fees? When I was shopping around, things seemed competitive enough, but I've heard mixed experiences from others since then. Has anyone else noticed any significant trade-offs when choosing flexibility over big-bank convenience?
I had a similar experience when I bought my first place—a quirky little bungalow that banks seemed to think was some kind of haunted shack. 😂 Big banks were all about ticking boxes, and my house definitely didn't fit their neat little checklists. Ended up going with a local credit union too, and honestly, the rates weren't noticeably higher. Maybe slightly different fees here and there, but nothing major. I'd say the flexibility and sanity-saving conversations were totally worth it...
"Big banks were all about ticking boxes, and my house definitely didn't fit their neat little checklists."
This hits home for me too. Makes me wonder, though—what exactly makes a property "unconventional" in the eyes of these big banks? Is it purely about marketability, or do they have some internal criteria that aren't obvious to us regular folks? When I bought my older farmhouse, I ran into similar hurdles because the property had some acreage and an outbuilding that wasn't exactly pristine. The bank acted like I'd asked them to finance a spaceship or something... 😂
I'm curious if anyone knows what specific factors trigger this hesitation from traditional lenders. Is it age, construction style, zoning quirks, or something else entirely? It just seems odd that smaller credit unions or community banks can comfortably lend on these properties when big banks balk. Maybe they're just more willing to look beyond standard metrics...?
