How to verify land control before a capital call

A sponsor's draw request usually comes with a site control certificate, a copy of the ground lease or purchase option, and maybe a title update. None of that tells you whether the parcel they're drawing against is the parcel on the ground. Title work confirms who holds the interest. It doesn't confirm the interest covers the acreage the pro forma assumes, or that construction has reached the milestone the draw schedule claims.

What "land control" actually covers, and what it doesn't

Land control diligence, as most shops run it, means confirming legal right: a recorded option, an executed ground lease, a title commitment with the right exceptions cleared. That's necessary. It's also a different question from whether the asset exists as described and is progressing the way the draw package says.

Those two questions get bundled together in a lot of pre-draw checklists, which is how a clean title file ends up standing in for a check that nobody ran.

The gap between the rep and the ground

Sponsor reps are written by the sponsor. Progress photos in a draw package are selected by the sponsor. Completion percentages are self-reported by the sponsor's construction manager, who works for the sponsor. None of that is fraud by default. It's one-sided reporting, and the associate signing off on the draw is often the last person in the chain who could have looked at anything independent and didn't.

Three things are worth confirming before capital moves, on any draw where the size or the relationship warrants it:

1. The parcel exists and sits where the legal description says it does.
2. The footprint or acreage under option matches what's in the model.
3. The construction progress claimed in the draw request roughly matches what's visible on site.

None of that requires a site visit you have to schedule three weeks out, or a flyover that costs more than the question is worth.

Pre-draw checks that don't slow the draw down

Most associates already handle title, survey review, and zoning confirmation in-house or through local counsel, and none of that changes here. What's usually missing is an independent visual check of the asset itself, one that doesn't depend on photos the sponsor's team selected and sent over.

That's the gap Site Verification fills: a before/after image pair pulled from very-high-resolution satellite or aerial imagery, built on demand, with a short report confirming the asset is there, the footprint matches what's under option, and the progress shown lines up with the draw request.

When the check is worth running

Not every draw justifies it. A construction loan on a single asset with a sponsor you've closed three prior deals with carries a different risk profile than a first draw to a new GC on a greenfield site with an aggressive schedule. Run the check where the draw size, the sponsor relationship, or the gap between reported and expected progress makes a second look worth the ask.

A land control certificate tells you who has the right to build. It says nothing about whether building is happening, or happening where the certificate says it should. That's a separate question, and on a capital call it's usually the one that matters.

If the next draw has a sponsor-supplied progress number you'd rather not take on faith, that's what Site Verification is for.