More Multifamily Debt Funds, but Older Properties Are Getting Shut Out

Written by:

Rudi Davis

Date:

05 May 2026

Share

Share via Facebook

Share via Linkedin

Share via X

Copy to clipboard

Debt funds in multifamily lending have multiplied in recent years, expanding the availability of capital on paper. But their highly specific underwriting requirements regarding property age, deal size, and business plan stage are creating a fragmented market in which matching the right borrower to the right lender has become a specialized skill.

On the surface, the multifamily lending market looks well-supplied with capital. Debt funds have grown significantly in number, and by most measures, there is no shortage of lenders willing to deploy money into the asset class. But the sheer volume of available capital can be misleading. According to Kristen Croxton, Principal and Co-Founder of Arcus Harbor Real Estate Capital, the real challenge is not finding a lender; it is finding the right one.

“There’s a lot of debt funds in the market,” Croxton says. “If you understand what each debt fund is looking for, you can pretty much find a provider for each deal. It’s just that a lot of them are nuanced on what they want, deal size, market, term, vintage.”

Capital availability is no longer the primary constraint for multifamily borrowers. Instead, the challenge is navigating a landscape of lenders with narrow criteria, where a deal that fits one fund may fall entirely outside another’s mandate. For borrowers without deep market relationships or an experienced intermediary, this complexity can make an otherwise viable deal feel unfundable.

Vintage Is Becoming a Hard Line

Among the criteria, debt funds are tightening, Croxton points to asset vintage, when a property was built, as one of the most consequential and least discussed. Older properties, long a staple of value-add multifamily investing, are meeting increasing resistance from lenders who have quietly raised their vintage thresholds.

Properties built before 2000 now trigger additional scrutiny from many lenders. “We used to say the ’60s were tough,” Croxton says, “and now a lot of our lenders will say older than 2000, they want to think about it.” The pool of lenders willing to finance pre-2000 assets has narrowed, and the terms available are less competitive than they were even a few years ago.

For owners of older multifamily assets, the consequences are concrete. Properties that financed easily in prior cycles may now require more extensive lender outreach, more creative structuring, or acceptance of higher costs. The value-add playbook that drove much of the multifamily investment activity of the 2010s assumed older assets could be repositioned and refinanced with relative ease. That assumption is now under pressure as lenders increasingly favor newer construction.

Bridge-to-Bridge Deals Face Mounting Resistance

Borrowers who took out short-term bridge loans during the acquisition boom of 2021, often at aggressive valuations and with business plans built on rapid rent growth, are now trying to extend or replace that debt without fully stabilizing their assets. Many lenders are reluctant to step into that position.

“There’s a little bit of reticence to do bridge to bridge,” Croxton says. “You have to find the right lender that’s comfortable with that.” Getting lenders comfortable typically requires a cash infusion from the sponsor or a new equity partner, both of which add cost and dilute the borrower’s position.

This pressure is particularly acute for deals financed at the market peak, where rate cap costs consumed capital that might otherwise have funded property improvements. Croxton describes a common scenario in which the business plan was effectively frozen by the rate environment. “The money was spent on rate caps instead of actually being able to renovate the property,” she says.

Navigating the Fragmented Market

As lender criteria grow more specific, firms that can quickly match deals to the right capital source hold a distinct advantage. Arcus Harbor maintains relationships with debt funds, CMBS lenders, life insurance companies, and agency lenders through its correspondent agreement with Lument, a range that Croxton says is essential for covering the full spectrum of deal profiles that borrowers bring to the table.

The firm’s approach centers on knowing each lender’s criteria well enough to identify the right fit without running a broad process that wastes time and signals desperation to the market. Arcus Harbor is one of several intermediaries operating in this space, but its breadth of lender relationships across multiple capital types reflects the kind of coverage increasingly required as underwriting criteria narrow. “We can cover all the bases for our clients,” Croxton says.

For borrowers navigating this landscape alone, the cost of a mismatch goes beyond a rejected application. It is lost time in a market where Treasury volatility can move pricing materially within days. As debt funds continue to multiply and their mandates grow more specific, the ability to map a particular deal, with its vintage, leverage profile, and business plan stage, to the right lender is becoming one of the most valuable services in multifamily finance.

About the Expert: Kristen Croxton is the Principal and Co-Founder of Arcus Harbor Real Estate Capital, a commercial real estate finance firm specializing in multifamily lending and capital markets advisory.

This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or investment advice. The views and opinions expressed herein reflect those of the individuals quoted and do not represent an endorsement of any company, product, or service mentioned. Readers should conduct their own due diligence and consult qualified professionals before making any investment decisions.