Cross-collateralization doesn't consolidate the foreclosure into one action in most states. You still have separate mortgages recorded against separate parcels, so you generally proceed parcel by parcel, and in judicial states each is its own case with its own timeline and cost. What the cross-default and cross-collateral language buys you is the right to accelerate all four when one defaults and to apply surplus from one sale to the deficiency on another, subject to state anti-deficiency and one-action rules that vary a lot. Whether those rules bite in your state is a question for a real estate attorney licensed there, and you want that answer before the documents are drafted, not after.
What you gain is real: the borrower can't hand you the one bad asset and keep the three good ones, which is exactly what happens with separate loans. What you give up is flexibility. Every payoff needs a partial release, every title commitment on the other three now shows your blanket lien, and if he wants to refinance one property with a bank, that bank will require you to release, so you're back at the negotiating table on his schedule.
Write an allocated loan amount for each parcel and a release price of 110 to 125 percent of that allocation, with a covenant that post-release LTV across the remaining collateral can't exceed your original cap. That's the mechanism that stops him from selling the strongest asset first and leaving you crossed into the weakest.
Separately, look at your own liquidity. Four loans to one borrower means one default event freezes 840k of your capital for the length of the slowest foreclosure in that state, and if you're funding these from a pool with redemption rights or from a line of credit, that timing mismatch hurts you before any collateral question does. Sizing per-borrower exposure to what you can afford to have stuck is the discipline that matters more here than the crossing question.
