Key Takeaways:
- Refinancing commercial real estate in 2026 often means replacing lower-rate debt with materially more expensive financing.
- The core refinance question is no longer just whether a loan can be replaced, but whether the new debt structure still supports the property’s cash flow and equity profile.
- Lenders remain active, but they are generally favoring stronger sponsorship, lower leverage, current appraisals, and durable property income.
- For some owners, injecting new capital to refinance may be less efficient than selling and repositioning through a 1031 exchange into another like-kind property.
- Investors who start evaluating refinancing and 1031 exchange paths well before loan maturity typically retain more flexibility than those waiting for a near-term deadline.
Borrowers who secured commercial real estate loans at 3-4% are now approaching maturity in a fundamentally different environment — one where refinancing often comes with materially higher borrowing costs, tighter underwriting, and new equity requirements that didn’t exist when the original loan was placed.
For many investors, the question is no longer just whether a loan can be refinanced. It’s whether refinancing still makes sense given today’s rates, lender expectations, and the capital that may be required to close the gap between the old balance and what a new lender will advance.
In some cases, refinancing allows investors to maintain ownership and continue executing their business plan. In others, the math may point toward selling and reinvesting through a 1031 exchange — deferring capital gains while repositioning capital into a different asset.
What follows covers both paths: what has changed in the lending environment, when refinancing still makes sense, and when alternatives warrant a closer look.
Why Is Refinancing Commercial Real Estate So Difficult Right Now?
A property that penciled well at a 3-4% coupon may not pencil the same way when refinancing at 6% or higher. That gap, between what the old loan costs and what a new loan costs, is the central challenge for investors with maturing CRE debt.
The difficulty is not just rate-based. Even when a lender is willing to refinance, the new loan may differ from the maturing one in three concrete ways: lower proceeds based on updated valuations, higher debt service that strains cash flow, and a required paydown to bridge the gap between the old balance and what the new lender will provide.
Any one of those can significantly change the investment math. All three together can make refinancing feel less like a solution and more like a new problem.
A large volume of commercial mortgages originated during the low-rate cycle are now coming due simultaneously, in the same lending market. That concentration is driven in large part by what the industry calls the “maturity wall.”
What Is the CRE Maturity Wall?
The maturity wall refers to a concentrated wave of commercial real estate loans coming due within a relatively short period. The challenge isn’t simply that loans are maturing; it’s that they’re maturing all at once, in a lending environment that looks materially different from when most of those loans were originated.
Prior extensions made this worse, not better. Many lenders gave borrowers extra time over the last few years, which delayed the problem without resolving it. As those extensions expire, owners are being forced to address valuation changes, tighter underwriting standards, and higher debt costs, all while having less runway than before.
For investors, the maturity wall matters because it compresses decision-making. Owners who might have had 12-18 months to evaluate their options are finding those windows narrower, and the lending market they’re refinancing into is more selective than the one they borrowed from.
The Rate and Equity Gap Problem
The refinancing challenge in 2026 is not only about rates, but it’s also about equity. Kidder Mathews noted in late 2025 that many maturing loans originally carried rates in the 4.1% to 4.7% range, while refinancing rates were landing closer to 6.5%. That spread directly affects debt service coverage and how much a lender will advance against a given property.
The equity side of the problem compounds the rate side. When lenders size proceeds against current net operating income, updated appraisals, and more conservative leverage assumptions, borrowers often face a shortfall between the old loan balance and what the new loan will cover. That gap has to be filled with fresh capital, and for many owners, that’s where the real decision begins.
PBMares reported that distressed CRE assets reached approximately $116 billion in Q1 2025, up 31% year over year. That figure reflects how many owners are already under pressure from exactly this dynamic, not just higher rates, but the combination of lower proceeds, tighter underwriting, and equity requirements that didn’t exist when the original loan was originated.
For investors facing that gap, the practical question is whether injecting new capital into the existing asset is the most efficient use of that money or whether it could be deployed more effectively elsewhere.
What Do Lending Conditions Look Like in 2026?
Capital is available in the current lending market, but availability does not mean accessibility. Lenders are transacting, but generally on stronger assets, at lower leverage, and with closer attention to sponsorship quality and property income stability.
The range of options an investor can evaluate depends heavily on where their specific property lands within those criteria.
Where Rates Stand
Rates continue to vary based on lender, property type, leverage, and sponsor quality, but in most cases remain meaningfully higher than the terms on maturing loans. LoanBase reported in early 2026 that stabilized multifamily refinances were often landing in the mid-5% to mid-6% range, depending on deal specifics.
For investors, the general market range is less important than how the available rate and structure affect this specific property’s cash flow, proceeds, and overall return profile. Two properties in the same market can produce very different refinance outcomes depending on occupancy, lease term, and current NOI.
Which Lenders Are Active
Lender appetite varies by institution type, and understanding who is actively writing deals matters as much as knowing the rate environment.
Balance-sheet lenders may still work constructively with existing borrowers, particularly on assets with stable income and manageable leverage. Life companies have remained active in select segments. Kidder Mathews noted that some life companies were issuing loans at 50%-60% LTV, using shorter-term Treasury benchmarks to keep deals moving.
Multifamily continues to attract the broadest lender interest across property types. LoanBase reported that multifamily properties were receiving an average of 3.6 lender quotes per deal in early 2026, the highest among the property types it tracked. For owners of other asset classes, the competitive dynamic looks different, and the path to refinancing may require more preparation and outreach.
Does Refinancing Still Make Sense for Your Property?
Refinancing may still be a viable path, but viability depends on whether the property can support the new loan under current conditions. That evaluation starts with the property’s income, current value, and how those factors interact with what lenders are actually willing to underwrite today.
Metrics Lenders Are Watching
Lenders typically focus on a cluster of underwriting metrics rather than a single headline number. These often include:
- Debt service coverage ratio (DSCR): whether property income supports the proposed debt payments
- Loan-to-value (LTV): the relationship between loan size and current appraised value
- Occupancy and rent stability: whether the asset’s income stream looks durable
- Lease rollover exposure: how much tenant risk sits in the near term
- Current appraisal and lender comfort: whether the lender is comfortable with current value and exit assumptions
Timing Still Matters
A refinance conversation that begins well ahead of maturity gives investors more room to address appraisal issues, tenant rollover, debt sizing, and alternative structures. Waiting until a loan is approaching its maturity date can narrow those options considerably.
Preparation typically starts with updated financials: rent roll, operating statements, lease schedules, and a realistic current value range. If those factors don’t align with lender requirements, refinancing may still be possible — but it may not be the most efficient path forward.
When Does a 1031 Exchange Make More Sense Than Refinancing?
When refinancing terms become difficult to justify, some investors evaluate whether selling the property and reinvesting elsewhere better aligns with their goals.
One approach worth considering is a 1031 exchange, which allows investors to defer capital gains taxes by reinvesting sale proceeds into another like-kind real estate asset.
A 1031 exchange is not a refinance substitute in every situation. It becomes more relevant when the current property no longer fits the investor’s risk tolerance, capital plan, management goals, or refinancing math. An owner might exchange an underperforming asset for a different property type or structure if it better aligns with current objectives.
Refinance or Reposition: A Simple Decision Framework
The decision between refinancing and repositioning rarely comes down to a single factor. It typically emerges from a combination of property performance, loan economics, and the investor’s broader capital goals. This framework is a starting point, not a substitute for qualified tax and legal advice.
Refinancing may make more sense when:
- The property continues to perform well with stable occupancy and durable income
- The investor wants to retain ownership and continue executing the existing business plan
- Loan terms remain workable at current debt costs without requiring a significant equity contribution
- The required paydown is manageable relative to expected returns on the asset
A 1031 exchange may deserve closer review when:
- The property is underperforming or facing structural leasing issues that refinancing won’t resolve
- The refinance gap requires a sizable capital injection that could be deployed more efficiently elsewhere
- The investor wants to reduce management burden or reposition into a different asset type or structure
- A sale would otherwise trigger capital gains that the investor may prefer to defer through a properly structured exchange into a like-kind replacement property
Neither path is universally preferable. The right answer depends on the specific property, the investor’s tax position, and the capital’s next steps. Investors evaluating both options typically benefit from starting their analysis well before the loan maturity date, when more flexibility remains.
The Bottom Line on Refinancing Commercial Real Estate
Refinancing commercial real estate in 2026 is a more complex decision than it was during the low-rate cycle. Some properties can still support a refinance on sensible terms. Others face too much pressure from higher rates, lower proceeds, or new equity demands to make refinancing the most efficient path forward.
That is why the better question is rarely just whether a property can be refinanced. It is whether refinancing still serves the investor’s broader objectives better than selling, repositioning, or completing a like-kind exchange into a different investment property, where like-kind means business or investment real estate exchanged for other business or investment real estate.
Investors weighing both paths typically benefit from starting that evaluation early, before a maturing loan narrows the available options.
For those exploring 1031 exchange-eligible replacement property, register for a free investor account and review available opportunities that align with your portfolio and investment objectives.
This material does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any security. An offer can only be made by a prospectus that contains more complete information on risks, management fees and other expenses. This literature must be accompanied by, and read in conjunction with, a prospectus or private placement memorandum to fully understand the implications and risks of the offering of securities to which it relates. As with all investing, investing in private placements is speculative in nature and involves a degree of risk, including loss of your principal. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results and forward-looking statements and projections are not guaranteed to achieve the results described and your actual returns may vary significantly. Investments in private placements are illiquid in nature and there may be no secondary market or ability to sell the investment should the need for liquidity arise. This material should not be construed as tax advice and you should consult with your tax advisor as individual tax situations will vary. Securities offered through Capulent, LLC Member FINRA, SIPC.
