LTC vs. LTV: How Private Lenders Actually Calculate Your Loan Amount

You call two lenders with the same project and get two different answers on how much you can borrow. One quotes you a number based on what the project costs to build. The other quotes you a number based on what it will be worth when it’s done. Neither lender is wrong, and neither is trying to confuse you. They’re just answering with different ratios.

Loan to cost (LTC) and loan to value (LTV) are the two calculations every private lender runs on a fix-and-flip, bridge, land development, or ground-up construction deal. Once you understand what each one measures and why lenders use them together, you stop getting surprised by a loan amount that’s lower than you expected, and you start structuring deals that hold up against both tests before you ever submit an application.

What Loan to Cost (LTC) Actually Measures

Loan to cost compares the loan amount to what you’re spending to acquire and complete the project, not what the project will be worth later. The formula is straightforward:

LTC = Loan Amount ÷ Total Project Cost

Total project cost typically includes the purchase price of the land or existing structure, hard construction or rehab costs, soft costs like permits and design fees, and often a contingency reserve. Say a builder is purchasing a lot for $150,000 and budgeting $450,000 for vertical construction. Total project cost is $600,000. A lender offering 80% LTC would cap the loan at $480,000, leaving the builder to bring the remaining $120,000 in cash or equity.

LTC protects the lender against a specific risk: that the borrower has enough of their own money in the deal to stay committed if costs run over or the timeline slips. It’s a cost-side test, and it doesn’t care what the finished property might sell for.

What Loan to Value (LTV) Actually Measures

Loan to value compares the loan amount to the property’s value, either its current as-is value or its projected after-repair or as-completed value (ARV). The formula:

LTV = Loan Amount ÷ Property Value

Using the same $600,000 project, suppose an appraiser or broker price opinion puts the as-completed value at $750,000 once construction is finished. A loan of $480,000 against that value comes out to 64% LTV, a much lower percentage than the 80% LTC figure above, even though it’s the exact same loan amount.

That gap is the whole point. LTC and LTV are measuring the same loan against two different denominators, and a deal that looks aggressive on one ratio can look conservative on the other. Lenders who only quote one number aren’t giving you the full picture.

Why Lenders Run Both Ratios on the Same Deal

Most private lenders calculate the maximum loan amount under both LTC and LTV, then use whichever number is lower. This “lesser of” approach is standard across fix-and-flip, bridge, and construction lending because each ratio catches a different failure mode:

  • LTC catches a skinny-budget deal, where the borrower is asking to finance nearly the entire cost with little of their own cash at risk.
  • LTV catches an optimistic-value deal, where the projected as-completed value is inflated relative to real comparable sales.

A deal only clears underwriting cleanly when both tests hold up. If your project passes the LTC test but the ARV looks soft compared to recent comps in the submarket, expect the LTV ceiling to pull your loan amount down, not the LTC number you were counting on.

How LTC and LTV Shift Across Loan Types

The mechanics stay the same, but what counts as “cost” and “value” changes depending on the loan product:

  • Fix-and-flip loans: LTC is based on purchase price plus the rehab budget. LTV is based on the after-repair value (ARV), usually supported by comparable sales of already-renovated properties nearby.
  • Bridge loans: LTV is often anchored to the property’s current as-is value rather than a future projected value, since the exit is typically a sale or permanent refinance within a shorter window.
  • Land development loans: LTC includes horizontal development costs such as grading, utilities, and road infrastructure, on top of the raw or entitled land price. LTV is based on the land’s value once development work brings it to a sellable or buildable state.
  • Vertical construction loans: LTC includes both hard construction costs and soft costs like architectural fees and permits. LTV is based on the appraised as-completed value of the finished structure.

A builder working across several of these loan types in the same year will see LTC and LTV move independently on every deal. Land with a low basis and strong entitlement value might clear LTV easily but need a bigger equity check to satisfy LTC. A deal in a fast-appreciating submarket might do the opposite.

How to Structure a Deal That Clears Both Ratios

Since the lower of the two ratios sets your actual loan amount, the strongest submissions are built to hold up under both from the start:

  1. Bring a defensible value estimate early. A broker price opinion or preliminary appraisal grounded in real, recent comparable sales gives the lender confidence in the LTV side before they start underwriting.
  2. Budget the full cost, not just the visible cost. Soft costs, permit fees, and a real contingency line belong in your total project cost. Underestimating them here doesn’t lower your LTC exposure, it just means you’ll be asking for change orders mid-project.
  3. Know which ratio is your constraint before you apply. If your as-completed value is uncertain or the submarket is thin on recent comps, expect LTV to be the binding number and plan your equity accordingly.
  4. Work with a lender who prices the deal, not just the grid. A rigid loan matrix applies the same LTC and LTV caps to every file. A lender with real construction and development experience can weigh a strong sponsor track record or a well-documented budget against a borderline ratio instead of declining on the number alone.

For a deeper look at how the value side of this calculation gets built, our guide to land development loan qualifying walks through the documentation lenders use to support an as-completed valuation.

According to Investopedia’s overview of the loan-to-cost ratio, LTC is most commonly applied in commercial and construction lending precisely because it isolates cost-side risk from market-side risk, which is why builders who understand both ratios walk into underwriting with fewer surprises.

Knowing your numbers on both sides of the equation before you submit an application is what separates a loan request that sails through underwriting from one that gets re-traded midway through.

If you’re sizing up a fix-and-flip, bridge, land development, or construction project and want a straight read on where your deal lands on both ratios, explore Cascara Capital’s loan programs and get a preliminary term sheet built around the real numbers, not just a grid.

Scroll to Top
Will Friedman

Controller

Will brings a diverse background in public accounting, institutional fund management, and financial operations to his role as Controller at Cascara Capital. He oversees financial reporting, private equity operations, and day-to-day portfolio management across the firm's lending platform and private equity fund. Prior to Cascara, Will spent nearly three years at one of the world's largest public accounting firms specializing in audit and transaction finance, before joining one of the country's largest fund management companies where he gained deep experience across fund structures and investor relations. Will holds a BBA in Finance and Accounting from Gonzaga University.

Heather Ross, CFO, smiles confidently with arms crossed, wearing a charcoal gray blazer over a dark top. She has wavy, shoulder-length blonde hair, and stands in front of a textured gray background.
Heather Ross

CFO

Coming soon...

Koby Lines, Business Loan Consultant, smiles with arms crossed, wearing a dark pinstripe suit, white shirt, and navy tie. The background is a plain, textured gray surface.
Koby Lines

Business Loan Consultant

Coming soon...











Max Rutherford, Senior Loan Analyst, standing with arms crossed, wearing a white shirt, against a textured gray background.
Max Rutherford

Director of Operations

Max brings a strong background in investment banking, financial analysis, and portfolio management to his role as Director of Operations at Cascara. He supports the firm’s loan strategy and underwriting efforts while managing client relationships, portfolio risk, fundraising initiatives, and marketing strategy. Prior to Cascara, he served as an Analyst Intern at Cascadia Capital, where he focused on financial modeling, market research, and pitch deck development. He also worked as an Accounting Associate at myGREEN Tax & Accounting, managing QuickBooks portfolios and preparing financial reports. Max holds a BBA in Marketing from the University of Washington’s Michael G. Foster School of Business.

Michael Thies, VP of Sales, in a suit standing and smiling against a plain, textured gray background.
Michael Thies

VP of Sales

Michael brings over 25 years of experience in mortgage lending, marked by leadership, operational excellence, and a dedication to helping clients achieve their goals. As a high-performing branch manager at Bank of America, he led a team that consistently funded more than $600 million annually, showcasing his talent for driving results and building strong teams. Throughout his career, Michael has personally originated over $700 million in residential loans, earning a reputation for integrity, trust, and personalized service. His deep understanding of market dynamics and borrower needs makes him a valued resource for clients and colleagues alike. Michael’s ability to blend strategic insight with a client-focused approach positions him as a respected leader in the industry.

Smokey Burns, board member, standing confidently in a gray suit with a blue tie and pocket square, against a textured gray background.
Smokey Burns

Board Member

Smokey brings over 25 years of experience in finance, accounting, and business development to Cascara. After earning his graduate degree from the University of San Francisco in 2001, he founded and led Epicenter Network, an online marketing company, as CFO until its successful sale in 2010. While staying on through 2015, he also launched Lexo Media Group in 2012 and sold it in 2015. In 2016, he co-founded Nimble Five, Inc., where he oversaw all finance and banking operations, managed accounting teams, led HR and compliance efforts, and worked closely with shareholders on strategic decisions. Smokey’s proven track record of multiple successful exits and his disciplined leadership have been key contributors to Cascara’s continued growth.

Brett Moreland, Founder & Principal, in a dark suit smiles confidently, standing against a plain, textured gray wall, exuding a professional demeanor.
Brett Moreland

Founder & Principal

Brett brings over 30 years of real estate finance experience to his role as Founder and Principal of Cascara Capital. He leads the firm’s strategic direction, capital relationships, and credit operations, drawing on deep expertise in lending cycles and risk management. Brett began his career at Norwest Bank before founding Qualfund Lending, LLC, which grew to 80 loan officers with annual volume exceeding $800 million. After selling Qualfund to First Independent Bank in 2003, he served as General Manager until 2005. Since then, Brett has focused on private lending, originating and servicing $700 million in bridge and construction loans. He holds a finance degree from Washington State University and lives in Kirkland, Washington, with his family.