A few years ago, a fairly plain residential or commercial scheme could still work if the location, leverage and exit were sound. Today, higher funding costs, build cost pressure, planning delays and tighter valuations mean the same scheme often needs more depth behind it.

That is why more investors are looking again at assets they already hold, or sites that are underused, and asking a more pointed question — what should this building become next?

In many cases, the answer is not a simple light refurbishment or a standard change of use. It is a move into more specialist sectors where demand is clearer, supply is tighter and the end user is easier to define.

We are seeing this across PBSA, BTR, co-living, the tech and science space, medical uses, infrastructure-led assets, mixed-use schemes and other less standard commercial formats.

Let’s be clear, these are not easy and straightforward sectors. They need more planning, more evidence and more work before a lender will take a view. But when the case is strong, they can give borrowers a route to value that a more generic scheme may no longer offer.

Refurbishment is no longer just a way to tidy up tired stock. It is becoming a route into sectors where occupiers have specific needs and where the right space can still attract demand. For brokers, lenders and valuers, that changes the nature of the deal. The asset must be judged not just on what it is today, but on what it can become.

This is why we are seeing more planning pivots into different asset classes. A site that began as one type of scheme may no longer work. The numbers may have changed, as may have the local market too. Debt costs may have made the original plan too tight and so rather than walk away, experienced investors are reassessing the asset and looking for a better fit.

That may mean student accommodation in a supply-constrained university city, or it may mean co-living where affordability and access to work are strong themes. It may mean BTR in a location where rental demand is strong, but sales are slower. It may mean life sciences or Med-Tech space where occupiers need infrastructure, specification, transport links and room to grow.

The common thread is that the scheme must be rooted in real demand and that is also why surveyors are becoming more central to the early discussion. In specialist sectors, the survey/valuation is rarely simple. There may be fewer direct comparables, and income may depend on a particular operator or tenant type. Fitout, lease terms, planning status, capex and exit route can all have a major effect on value.

•   The Finance Professional Show 2025: The Video
•   Mezzanine 'far from dead' — but fewer players in the game
•   Mortimer Street Capital funds London development with £7.5m package

An investor may see a clear opportunity, but unless the valuation case can be set out in a way that lenders understand, the deal may not get past credit. This is where brokers and advisers need to do far more work before a case is shown to funders.

We are seeing this shift in the type of finance clients need, as more investors are looking at infrastructure loans, portfolio purchases and restructuring, complex fund structures, and commercial or mixed-use term facilities. These are rarely off-the-shelf cases. They need early work on the borrower, the asset, the business plan, the cash flow, the exit and the likely lender fit.
That upfront work is now one of the most important parts of the process and the best funding outcomes often come from repeat borrowers, client referrals and introducer partnerships because trust and context matter. When a deal is complex, the lender needs confidence that the borrower knows the sector, has the right team and has thought through the risks. The broker’s role is to bring that together into a clear credit case, not simply pass on a pack of documents.

This is especially true when the security itself is less standard. PBSA, BTR, co-living, tech and science space, Med-Tech, mixed-use and infrastructure-backed assets all have their own pressure points. The lender needs to understand not only the bricks and mortar, but the market, the operator risk, the planning path, the income profile and the exit.

For developers, the message is clear. The market still has liquidity for good schemes, but the bar is higher. Niche opportunities can work, but they need evidence, a clear reason for demand, plus a funding structure that reflects the delivery plan. They also need a broker who can shape the case before it reaches the lender.

Economic pressures have not stopped deal-making, but it has made it more selective. In some ways, that is positive. It is forcing investors to think harder about use, quality, sustainability and long-term demand and it is pushing underused assets back into productive use. It is also opening the door for specialist lenders who are willing to understand a scheme rather than judge it through a standard lens.

Tomorrow’s deal-making will be less about chasing the broadest market and more about matching the right asset to the right demand pool. Refurbishment will be a major part of that story.

The investors who succeed will be those who can see beyond the current use of a building and identify where demand is moving. The brokers who succeed will be those who can turn that idea into a fundable case and the lenders who lead in these niches will be those who don’t lose sight of the basics: location, borrower quality, delivery risk, income and exit.

In a tighter market, the best opportunities are rarely the most obvious. Increasingly, they are found in assets that need work, thought and a clear plan. That is where refurbishment has moved from being a fallback option to becoming one of the main routes into the next phase of specialist property finance.