Most brokers can fund a rooming house. Almost none can tell you whether it will work before you buy the site.

Yes, Australia wide, and from September 2026 for the construction itself, not only the completed asset. A lender on our panel funds Class 1B builds and conversions at up to 80% of construction cost, or 70% of the as-if-complete value excluding GST, whichever is the lower, and a registered, tenanted asset bought as a going concern at up to 80% LVR, through a progressive-draw facility, subject to valuation and the lender’s servicing criteria. Class 1B funding remains largely non-bank territory: expect a higher rate than a standard residential facility, a shorter lender panel, and a file that has to be prepared the way that lender’s credit team reads a rooming house.

Yes. Up to 80% of construction cost, or 70% of the as-if-complete value excluding GST, whichever is the lower, on a progressive-draw facility for a Class 1B rooming house or co-living project, Australia wide, through a lender on our panel, subject to valuation and the lender’s servicing criteria. The valuation is the hinge: the facility is set against the lender’s valuation of the project and drawn in stages as the build progresses, so the site, the plans and the builder’s contract decide the number before any lender does. Most lenders will not fund the construction of a rooming house at all, which is why investors have carried these builds on cash or on equity in their own home. Bring us the site before you buy it and we will tell you where that valuation is likely to land.

No. A registered, tenanted Class 1B rooming house bought as a going concern is the straightforward version of this work: one valuation question, one lender that reads the income basis properly, up to 80% LVR subject to valuation and the lender’s servicing criteria. A site bought and built under a progressive-draw facility, refinanced on completion with the land tax exemption planned from the first week, is the complex version. Both get the same reader, someone who has built, licensed and run them, and the same process.

A building classification under the National Construction Code covering boarding houses, guest houses and hostels of a certain size. The classification determines construction standards, fire and safety requirements, the licensing pathway, and which lenders will consider the asset.

Published industry figures put rooming house yields above 10% against 3–5% for traditional rentals, with quality Melbourne stock reported earning $150,000 a year and above. Those are gross figures before management, compliance, vacancy and holding costs, which are materially higher than a standard rental. The model works on net, not gross.

An exemption pathway exists for certain rooming house arrangements under Victorian land tax legislation. With the threshold cut from $300,000 to $50,000, whether you qualify can decide the project’s viability. Victoria has legislated actively in this area, so confirm the current position with your accountant before you commit. We will tell you what to ask them.

Often, subject to planning, building classification and licensing. Conversion is the pathway most investors underestimate: the finance is the straightforward part, and the planning and classification work is where projects stall.

Yes. The lending is arranged Australia wide. What does not travel is the rulebook: Regulation 74, Class 1B licensing and the land tax exemption are Victorian instruments, and every state writes its own. The asset also changes name at the border: a rooming house in Victoria, a boarding house in New South Wales, rooming accommodation in Queensland, and co-living almost anywhere as a newer name for the same building. We arrange the finance wherever the property is, and we say plainly where our own operating experience sits, which is Victoria, because we have built and registered them here.

Two different tests, and the lender takes the lower. On a purchase of a registered, tenanted asset, up to 80% LVR, which puts your contribution at 20% of the funded amount. On a build or a conversion, up to 80% of construction cost or 70% of the as-if-complete value excluding GST, which is the test that usually binds, and it is why a project can be fundable on cost and short on value at the same time. What moves it is location, the valuation basis the lender applies, and that lender’s servicing criteria. It is not a promise: the same project can be assessed on a standard residential basis by one lender and as a going concern by another, and the two produce different numbers. We test which basis your site attracts before the file goes anywhere. Subject to lender criteria, security position and eligibility.

Yes, in the two places that decide the deal: valuation and lender appetite. A standard investment loan is assessed on the dwelling and the suburb’s comparable sales. Rooming house loans are assessed on the asset’s income, the Class 1B compliance position and a much shorter lender panel, and some valuers will still read the property as an ordinary house (older listings may call it a boarding house) unless the file argues the income basis properly. That argument is the difference between 80% LVR and a lender that will not fund it. Subject to lender appetite, valuation basis and eligibility.