Had a similar experience myself with an unconventional property a few years back—converted barn with open loft space. Lenders definitely get uneasy when things don't fit neatly into their boxes. I agree visuals and comps go a long way, but I've found it's equally important to frame the narrative clearly: why the property is desirable, how its uniqueness adds value, and how easily any quirks can be addressed. Sometimes lenders just need reassurance that they're not stepping into something too risky or unsellable down the line.
One thing I'd add is providing multiple contractor estimates if possible. Lenders tend to trust numbers more when they see consistency across different sources. Also, highlighting local market trends or buyer demand for unique properties can help shift their perspective from "quirky liability" to "marketable asset." Sounds like you're already on the right track though... lenders just need a little extra convincing sometimes.
"Sometimes lenders just need reassurance that they're not stepping into something too risky or unsellable down the line."
Yeah, totally agree with this... lenders seem to get nervous about anything even slightly outside their comfort zone. When I was looking at an older property with some unusual zoning restrictions, I noticed a similar hesitation. We ended up having to dig into local records to show how easily other owners had navigated those quirks before.
I'm curious though—do you think smaller local banks or credit unions might be more flexible with unconventional properties compared to the big national lenders? I've heard mixed things from friends, some saying local banks were more understanding about regional quirks, others saying they stuck even more rigidly to guidelines because they're more risk-averse. Has anyone here had a better experience going local for these kinds of unusual properties?
I've actually found the opposite to be true in my experience. When I was dealing with a property that had some odd easement issues, the local credit union was surprisingly rigid—they stuck closely to their guidelines and wouldn't budge. On the other hand, a larger national lender had more resources and experience with similar situations, so they were able to offer more flexibility. Might depend heavily on the specific lender and their past experiences, though...
I've noticed something similar myself. While local lenders often have a reputation for flexibility, my experience refinancing a home with an unusual zoning issue showed otherwise. The smaller lender I approached was hesitant and stuck strictly to their checklist, whereas a bigger bank had dealt with similar quirks before and navigated it smoothly. It seems less about size or type and more about whether they've encountered your specific issue before... luck of the draw, maybe?
"It seems less about size or type and more about whether they've encountered your specific issue before... luck of the draw, maybe?"
You make a good point here. In my experience, lenders—regardless of their size—tend to be cautious when facing unfamiliar territory. I once had a client dealing with a property that had an old easement issue. Initially, we thought a smaller, local lender would be more flexible, but they ended up being quite rigid because they'd never handled something similar. Surprisingly, a larger institution stepped in and resolved it quickly, simply because they'd seen it before.
It's definitely frustrating when you feel your situation doesn't neatly fit into their checklist. But you're right; sometimes it's just about finding the lender who's already navigated that particular quirk. Persistence usually pays off, even if it feels like trial and error at times.
