Property investors and developers who operate through limited companies or Special Purpose Vehicles can access bridging finance in the same way individual borrowers can, but the application process has several important differences. The underwriting focus remains on the property and the exit, as it does for any bridging case, but lenders also need to understand the company structure, confirm who stands behind the borrowing, and obtain personal guarantees from the directors or shareholders. Because companies cannot be regulated borrowers under the Mortgage Credit Directive, all limited company and SPV bridging is unregulated by definition, which gives lenders more flexibility on structure and terms than regulated residential products allow.

This guide explains how company bridging applications are assessed, what SPV structures look like from a lender’s perspective, what personal guarantees actually commit directors to, the documents typically required in addition to the standard bridging checklist, and where bridging ends and development finance begins for this audience. It is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or tax advice. Company structures, tax treatment, and legal arrangements vary considerably, and specific advice should come from qualified professionals.

How company applications differ from personal applications

The core underwriting logic of bridging does not change for a company application: lenders still assess the security property and the exit plan as the primary risk controls. What changes is the layer of borrower assessment that sits around that core. For a personal application, lenders assess the individual’s financial position, credit history, and in regulated cases their affordability. For a company application, the company itself is the borrower, which introduces different questions: who owns and controls the company, what is the company’s purpose, does it have the legal capacity to borrow and charge property, and who will stand behind the debt personally if the company cannot repay it.

Because companies are separate legal entities, a lender cannot rely solely on the company’s own financial position to assess repayment risk. A newly incorporated SPV with no assets other than the property being acquired has no balance sheet to speak of, and even a trading company’s accounts may not give a reliable picture of its ability to service or repay a short-term bridging facility. Lenders address this by requiring personal guarantees from the directors or shareholders, which effectively makes the underlying individuals personally liable for the debt. This is standard practice across the company bridging market rather than a sign of lender caution about a specific case. Understanding that a personal guarantee will be required before approaching a lender avoids any surprise at the documentation stage. Our guide to regulated versus unregulated bridging explains the broader classification framework, and why company cases always fall into the unregulated category.

The borrowing entity and lender due diligence

Before underwriting the property and exit, lenders need to confirm the identity and structure of the borrowing entity. This means establishing who the directors are, who the beneficial owners are, what the company was incorporated to do, and whether it has the legal authority to borrow money and charge property as security. A company whose articles of association restrict its activities in a way that is inconsistent with the proposed transaction may need to update its articles before the loan can proceed. This is a legal point that a solicitor can address relatively quickly in most cases, but it is worth identifying early in the process to avoid it becoming a delay close to completion.

Anti-money laundering requirements also apply at the company level: lenders must establish the beneficial ownership chain, which for simple SPVs is straightforward but for more complex holding structures with multiple entities or overseas beneficial owners requires more documentation. Being prepared with a clear company structure chart that shows the ownership and control chain from the borrowing entity up to the ultimate beneficial owners is one of the most effective ways to accelerate this part of the due diligence process. Our guide to what bridging lenders look for covers the full scope of lender assessment across both personal and company applications.

SPV structures: what lenders look for

A Special Purpose Vehicle is a limited company incorporated specifically to hold a single property or a defined property portfolio, rather than to carry on a broader trading business. Property investors and developers use SPV structures for a range of reasons including liability separation between assets, portfolio management, and structuring considerations. The use of an SPV is not unusual in bridging applications and most specialist lenders are well accustomed to dealing with them. For the purposes of a bridging application, the SPV structure does not introduce fundamental additional complexity beyond the company-specific documentation requirements described in this guide.

Newly incorporated SPVs

One of the most common concerns among first-time company borrowers is whether a newly incorporated company can access bridging. The answer, in the context of SPV bridging, is straightforwardly yes. Lenders expect SPVs to be newly incorporated, because an SPV is typically set up specifically for the transaction or asset being acquired. A company incorporated last week with no accounts and no trading history is a normal and well-understood proposition in this market. What lenders look at instead is the experience and track record of the directors behind the SPV, the quality of the property being acquired, the personal guarantee commitment from those directors, and the credibility of the exit plan.

Directors who have a demonstrable track record in property investment or development, even if that track record is held personally rather than through the new entity, are in a stronger position than those who are undertaking their first transaction. This does not mean first-time buyers through an SPV are excluded: lenders assess the full picture, and a clean exit plan, strong equity position, and a credible personal guarantee can support an application even without an extensive property portfolio behind it. The key point is that the SPV’s lack of history is not itself the issue; the directors’ experience and the strength of the underlying case are what matter.

Company purpose and the articles of association

The articles of association of the borrowing company define what it is permitted to do. For an SPV being used to acquire and hold or develop a property, the articles need to be consistent with the proposed transaction. Most standard articles of association for a property SPV will include the necessary powers, but it is worth having a solicitor confirm this before the application reaches the documentation stage. A company whose articles restrict it to, for example, residential lettings only may encounter complications if the proposed transaction involves a commercial element or a development activity not covered by the stated purpose.

Lenders also need confirmation, typically via a board resolution, that the directors have formally authorised the company to enter into the bridging loan and to charge the property as security. For a single-director SPV this is a straightforward formality. For a company with multiple directors, the resolution needs to reflect whatever the articles require in terms of quorum and decision-making authority. A solicitor advising on the transaction will typically prepare the board resolution as part of their standard work on a company bridging case.

Personal guarantees: what they mean in practice

A personal guarantee is a legal commitment by an individual, typically a director or significant shareholder of the borrowing company, to repay the loan personally if the company is unable to do so. When a lender requires a personal guarantee on a company bridging loan, they are effectively piercing the corporate veil: the company is the borrower, but the individual guarantors are personally on the hook if the company defaults and the security realisation does not cover the outstanding balance. This is the standard mechanism by which lenders obtain credit comfort on company applications where the company itself has limited financial history or assets beyond the secured property.

Joint and several liability

Where a company has multiple directors or shareholders, lenders typically require personal guarantees from all of them and structure the guarantee on a joint and several basis. Joint and several liability means that each guarantor is individually liable for the full outstanding amount of the loan, not just their proportionate share of the company. If a company with two equal shareholders defaults, and one guarantor cannot be reached or cannot pay, the lender can pursue the other for the entire outstanding balance. This is an important practical point for directors entering into a joint and several guarantee with a co-director or co-investor: each person’s personal liability is not limited to their stake in the company.

Before signing a personal guarantee on a company bridging loan, directors should read the guarantee document carefully and take independent legal advice if there is any uncertainty about its terms. A personal guarantee is a serious financial commitment that survives the company’s existence: if the company is dissolved or placed into administration, the guarantee can still be called upon. This is not a reason to avoid company bridging; personal guarantees are a standard and expected part of the process. It is, however, a reason to understand clearly what is being committed to before proceeding. The guarantee terms, including any cap on the amount guaranteed or any conditions that limit its scope, should be confirmed in writing before the loan completes.

Documents typically required for a company bridging application

A company bridging application requires the standard property and exit documents that any bridging application needs, plus a set of company-specific documents that confirm the identity and legal capacity of the borrowing entity. The card grid below sets out the typical requirements across four categories. Specific lenders may ask for additional documents or have different requirements depending on the complexity of the transaction and the company structure. The bridging loan document checklist covers the full application document set including the property and exit evidence that sits alongside the company-specific items below.

Document requirements by category

Having these documents prepared before the application is submitted significantly reduces the time between application and drawdown. In company bridging, the most common source of avoidable delay is incomplete corporate documentation: a missing board resolution, an articles of association that needs updating, or a beneficial ownership chain that requires additional evidence to satisfy the lender’s anti-money laundering requirements. A solicitor with experience in company property transactions will be familiar with these requirements and can coordinate the corporate documentation in parallel with the property legal work.

Bridging versus development finance: where the line sits

For property investors and developers using limited companies, the choice between bridging and development finance is one of the most practically important decisions in structuring a transaction. The two products are designed for different types of project, are structured differently, and are assessed by lenders using different criteria. Using the wrong product for a specific project is not merely a cost question: it can affect whether a lender is willing to proceed at all, and using bridging for a project that requires development finance can create significant problems if the work required turns out to exceed what a bridging lender’s security assessment was based on.

What bridging is for in this context

Bridging finance for a company is appropriate when the transaction involves acquisition of a property with a defined exit route that does not depend on significant development work being completed first. The most common company bridging scenarios are straightforward acquisitions where the exit is a refinance or sale, auction purchases where speed of completion is the primary requirement, and light refurbishment projects where the work is cosmetic or non-structural and the property’s value is not dependent on the work being completed before the exit can proceed. In all of these cases, the lender is lending against the current value of the property, and the exit does not require any improvement in that value to work.

Light refurbishment in this context typically means work that does not require structural intervention, change of use, or planning consent: redecoration, new kitchens and bathrooms, flooring, landscaping, and similar improvements. A bridging lender may be willing to take a view on property value after light works, particularly if the cost is modest and the works are straightforward, but the loan will typically be structured against the existing value rather than the projected post-works value. This is a meaningful difference from development finance, where the projected end value is central to the lending calculation.

When development finance is the right product instead

Development finance is the appropriate product when the project involves structural work, conversion, significant extension, change of use, or new build where the value of the asset at completion is materially different from its value at the start. Development finance lenders lend against a combination of the existing value and the projected Gross Development Value: the anticipated value of the completed property. The loan is typically drawn down in tranches as the development progresses and is monitored by a project monitor who verifies that the work has reached the claimed stage before each tranche is released.

The distinction matters in practice because a bridging lender who discovers mid-term that the works being carried out are more extensive than the original proposal indicated may have concerns about the security value and the exit timeline. Development finance is structured to accommodate the risk that a property in active development has a variable and uncertain value during the construction period; bridging is not. If there is any ambiguity about which category a specific project falls into, the advice of a specialist broker who understands both products and their respective lender markets is the most reliable way to identify the right structure before committing to an approach. Our guide to how bridging loan interest is calculated is also relevant here, since the interest structure and cost profile of bridging and development finance differ in important ways.

Why company bridging is always unregulated

The Mortgage Credit Directive, which underpins the FCA’s regulated mortgage framework in the UK, defines a regulated mortgage contract as one entered into by an individual. A company, as a legal entity rather than an individual, cannot be a regulated borrower within this framework. The consequence is that any bridging loan made to a limited company or SPV is automatically unregulated, regardless of what the property is used for or whether directors are personally associated with it. This applies even if the property being secured is one that an individual director lives in, provided the borrowing entity is the company rather than the individual.

The practical effect of the unregulated classification is that lenders have more flexibility on structure, terms, and credit assessment than they do for regulated products. The FCA conduct rules that apply to regulated bridging, including mandatory affordability assessments, prescribed pre-contractual disclosure documents, and a statutory reflection period, do not apply to unregulated company lending. This flexibility is why company bridging can sometimes be arranged faster and on more tailored terms than regulated residential products. The trade-off is that the consumer protections built into the regulated framework do not apply: the borrowing entity is a corporate body rather than a consumer, and the legal relationship is governed by commercial rather than consumer finance law. Directors should be aware of this distinction and ensure that any legal advice they take on the transaction is provided by a solicitor who understands the commercial bridging context. Our guide to open versus closed bridging loans is also relevant for company applications, since the open or closed classification applies to company bridging in exactly the same way as it does to personal bridging.

Frequently asked questions

Can a newly incorporated company get a bridging loan?

Yes, and this is one of the most common scenarios in company bridging. An SPV incorporated specifically to acquire a property is typically a new company with no trading history and no accounts, and lenders are well accustomed to this structure. The absence of company history is not treated as a negative indicator because it is the norm for SPV applications rather than the exception. What lenders focus on instead is the experience and background of the directors, the personal guarantee they will provide, the quality of the property being acquired, and the credibility of the exit plan.

A director with a track record of successful property transactions, even if those transactions were carried out personally or through different entities, is in a stronger position than one who is undertaking their first property deal through a company. However, newly incorporated companies with first-time directors are not automatically excluded: the underlying transaction, the security quality, and the exit plan are the primary underwriting factors. A newly incorporated company with a clean, well-evidenced acquisition of a straightforward residential property with a credible sale exit may be a stronger application than an established company with a complex structure and a weaker exit plan.

Does the company need to have traded before applying?

For an SPV, no. SPVs are incorporated specifically to hold or develop a property, and no trading history is expected or required. Lenders understand that these entities are created for the transaction and will not have operating accounts, VAT registrations, or other markers of a trading business. The documentation required confirms the legal existence and ownership structure of the company rather than its financial performance.

For a trading company applying for bridging, the position is slightly different. Lenders may request accounts to understand the company’s financial position, though the primary underwriting driver remains the property and exit rather than the company’s income or profitability. A trading company with a strong balance sheet is not necessarily better positioned than a newly incorporated SPV if the SPV’s property and exit are stronger. Conversely, a trading company with significant existing liabilities may raise questions about whether the personal guarantee from its directors carries the weight the lender needs. The full picture of the company and the individuals behind it is what the lender assesses, rather than trading history as a standalone factor.

What does a personal guarantee actually commit me to?

A personal guarantee is a legally binding commitment to repay the company’s debt personally if the company cannot do so. In the context of a bridging loan, this typically means that if the company defaults and the lender’s enforcement of the security does not recover the full outstanding balance, the guarantor is personally liable for the shortfall. The guarantee survives the company: if the SPV is wound up, dissolved, or placed into administration, the personal guarantee can still be called upon by the lender.

On a joint and several basis, where multiple directors guarantee the same loan, each guarantor is individually liable for the full outstanding balance rather than just their share. If the loan balance is £400,000 and one of two equal co-directors cannot meet their portion, the lender can pursue the other for the full £400,000. Before signing a personal guarantee, directors should read the guarantee document in full, confirm with the lender whether it is limited or unlimited in scope, and take independent legal advice if there is any uncertainty about what they are committing to. A limited guarantee, which caps the amount the guarantor is liable for at a specific figure, provides more protection than an unlimited one; not all lenders offer limited guarantees, but it is worth asking whether this is available on the specific product.

Can an overseas-registered company borrow against UK property?

In principle, an overseas-registered company can be a borrower on a UK bridging loan secured against UK property, but the practical reality is that this significantly narrows the panel of willing lenders and typically involves more extensive due diligence and a longer timeline than an equivalent UK-incorporated application. The primary concern for lenders is enforceability: in the event of a default, the lender needs to be confident that they can enforce both the security over the UK property and the personal guarantees from the directors or beneficial owners. Where those individuals are based overseas or where the borrowing entity is incorporated in a jurisdiction that creates additional legal complexity, the enforcement picture is less straightforward and many lenders will not proceed.

Specialist lenders with international experience handle overseas company cases, but the due diligence is more extensive, the legal costs are higher, and the timeline to completion is typically longer than for a UK-incorporated equivalent. Where there is a choice between borrowing through a UK-incorporated entity and an overseas one, most brokers will recommend incorporating a UK SPV for the transaction to maximise lender options and minimise complexity. Borrowers with existing overseas corporate structures who cannot or prefer not to incorporate a UK entity should work with a broker who has specific experience in cross-border property finance and who knows which lenders in the market are willing to consider the specific jurisdiction and structure involved.

Is there a minimum or maximum loan size for company bridging?

Minimum loan sizes vary by lender, with many specialist bridging lenders setting a minimum in the range of £100,000 to £250,000 for company applications. Some lenders will go lower for straightforward cases, and some set their minimum higher. There is no regulatory minimum or maximum. The lower end of the company bridging market is served by a reasonable number of specialist lenders; very large loans above several million pounds are handled by fewer lenders who specialise in complex or institutional transactions. These are general observations about the market rather than specific figures for any particular lender or product.

The loan size that is available in any specific case depends on the property value, the loan-to-value the lender is willing to offer, and the overall strength of the application. A company application that sits at a conservative loan-to-value with a strong exit and experienced directors will typically attract a more competitive set of lender options than one at the top of the LTV range with a weaker exit story. For business borrowing that does not involve property security, separate products exist and the lending criteria are different. A broker with access to the full market will be able to identify which lenders are best matched to the specific loan size and structure required.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or tax advice. Bridging loans for limited companies are unregulated products and the consumer protections that apply to regulated mortgage contracts do not apply. Your property may be repossessed if the company does not repay the bridging loan, and personal guarantors may be pursued for any outstanding balance not recovered from the security. Company structures, tax treatment, and legal arrangements vary and specific advice should be sought from qualified professionals before proceeding. Actual outcomes will depend on individual circumstances and lender criteria.