Ground-up storage at 95 dollars a square foot hard cost versus buying stabilized at a 6.2 cap, and how the lease-up curve should factor in

Question

Take a self storage development versus buy decision in a secondary metro. Say a site delivers 78,000 net rentable square feet across two buildings, a mix of climate controlled and drive up. Hard cost pricing around 95 dollars a square foot, roughly 118 dollars a square foot all in once land, soft costs, and an interest reserve are added. A stabilized pro forma might land near 1.05 million in NOI at 14 dollars a square foot effective rent and 90 percent occupancy, putting total cost around 9.2 million against a value near 15 million at a 7 cap. That spread looks strong on paper. Set against that, a stabilized three property portfolio in the same region shopped at a 6.2 cap on trailing NOI, with no lease up risk and an existing management platform already in place. The part that decides the comparison is the lease up curve, not the spread. Construction pricing on steel and metal buildings has been moving, and lease up is consistently where storage development goes wrong. Model 30 months to stabilization instead of 18, and most of the development premium gets absorbed by the interest reserve and by concessions. The way to sanity check that curve before committing is a genuine supply study for the trade area, absorption comparables from recently delivered facilities nearby, and stress testing the interest reserve against the slower timeline rather than the optimistic one. The aggregation argument for the three property portfolio is real too, since a platform already built is worth something against having to build one from scratch.

Rena Expert · Accepted Answer

The development premium you're describing is almost entirely lease-up compensation, so the question is whether roughly 520 basis points of yield-on-cost spread, 11.4 percent on your $9.2m of cost against a 6.2 cap, actually pays for the risk you're taking. At 78,000 sf you need roughly 700 to 800 units rented. In a market absorbing 2,500 sf a month you're at 31 months to 90 percent, and that's before you account for the fact that early rentals come in at concession rates you'll spend two years burning off.

So model the absorption in square feet per month drawn from actual comparable lease-ups in that submarket, not months to stabilization backed into from a target. Get the operators of the last three facilities built within five miles to tell you what their first 24 months looked like. Some will. That number is the whole deal.

Your interest reserve is where the sensitivity bites. On $9.2m with roughly $6m of construction debt, twelve extra months of carry is real money and it comes out of equity right when you have no cash flow to service it. Size the reserve to the pessimistic curve, because a reserve that runs dry mid-lease-up puts you back at the lender's table with no leverage.

The piece your framing skips is what happens to rate growth if that submarket takes more supply while you're in lease-up. Storage rents move fast in both directions and a second facility breaking ground eighteen months behind you doesn't just take your units, it caps your street rate for years. Check what's in entitlement, not just what's built.

On the portfolio: three facilities with an existing management platform is not much of a platform. You're getting a website and a manager. Real operating advantage in storage shows up somewhere north of fifteen or twenty facilities where you can afford centralized revenue management and a call center. Don't pay a premium for scale you aren't getting.

sonia_alvarez · Answer

The interest reserve point is where I'd push hardest. Construction lenders on storage have been sizing reserves to the lender's absorption assumption, not the sponsor's, and when the two differ by a year the shortfall shows up at month 20, right when the reserve is exhausted and the extension fee conversation starts. Ask for the reserve sizing memo, in writing, before signing anything, and ask what the extension terms look like. A lot of current deal flow is extensions rather than new originations for exactly this reason.

stephen_ok9 · Answer

Something I'm still working out on the capital side: a 6.2 cap on trailing NOI on three stabilized facilities is a very different asset than your development. If the seller has been managing at street rates below market you might have real upside in the trailing number, which effectively lowers your entry cap. Have you looked at their existing tenant rate spread against current street rates on the same unit mix? That gap is the cheapest NOI growth in storage and it doesn't require you to pour concrete.

marcus_hale41 · Answer

I pulled apart a similar comparison on a two-facility offering and the thing that decided it for me was the age of the tenant base. Facilities where the average tenant has been in place four years have almost no room left for existing customer rate increases without a churn spike, because they've already absorbed six or seven of them. The offering memo won't tell you that. I had to ask for a tenant-tenure distribution and the broker acted like I'd asked for their tax returns. Girder, if you go the acquisition route, make that request early and see how they react.

nicole_adeyemi · Answer

Worth asking what's in entitlement around the site, which matters more than the GC quote at this stage. Storage zoning approvals have gotten harder in a lot of jurisdictions, and moratoriums on new self-storage have shown up in enough municipalities that a bad neighbor can be legally impossible rather than just unlikely. That cuts both ways. Checking the planning commission agendas for the last two years directly, rather than trusting a supply study, is worth the time, since the study probably only counted permitted and built square footage. Zoning rules vary by municipality and state, so what's true one county over may not apply here.

hannah_west29 · Answer

Running the numbers with a 30-month curve instead of 18: at $6m of debt and say 8 percent, the extra year is roughly $480k of carry. Yield on cost drops from about 11.4 percent to something near 10.5 percent depending on how concessions are treated. Still above 6.2, so the development wins on paper even in the bad case. What kills it is the case nobody models, which is 30 months of lease-up plus rents landing at $12/sf instead of $14. That combination puts NOI near $900k and yield on cost under 9.5, and now the developer is taking construction risk for maybe 300 basis points. What does the rent comp set actually show on climate-controlled 10x10s?

Ground-up storage at 95 dollars a square foot hard cost versus buying stabilized at a 6.2 cap, and how the lease-up curve should factor in

6 replies