Six things for 2026: What commercial property developers should be thinking about

For commercial property developers, 2026 brings opportunity, but it also demands discipline. Funding remains selective, but well-located schemes with a clear commercial rationale are still attracting attention, particularly where risk has been properly structured. At the same time, the route from site to completed development remains complicated. Planning timetables are hard to predict, procurement risk continues to sit behind most build programmes, and the buildings investors want to buy are being judged on more than location and income. Performance, compliance and resilience now matter far more than they did even five years ago.

The legal issues that derail schemes rarely arrive neatly packaged. They tend to surface at the most commercially awkward moments: during due diligence when you are trying to exchange, mid-programme when a delivery issue pushes cost or timing, or at exit when a buyer’s solicitor starts asking questions nobody anticipated. By that point, fixing the problem is expensive, time-consuming, or sometimes not realistic without compromising the deal.

With that in mind, here are six areas developers should be watching closely in 2026.

1. Planning conditions are where schemes come unstuck, not planning refusals

Getting permission granted can feel like the finish line, but it rarely is. The conditions attached to a consent, together with the obligations sitting alongside it, can reshape a programme in ways that are difficult to reverse once delivery is underway.

For developers, the risks often sit in the detail. Section 106 obligations with trigger points that do not align with phasing plans, conditions that delay critical works or require further approvals, and construction management requirements that restrict how and when a site can be built out. These issues are not unusual, but the commercial impact can be significant where compliance steps take longer than expected, or where obligations were not fully priced at application stage.

The legal question is not simply whether conditions are technically capable of being discharged. It is whether the conditions allow you to build the scheme your funding model depends on, in the timeframe you have committed to. If Section 106 triggers do not match your programme, or if post-permission requirements delay practical completion, you have a commercial problem that is difficult to solve later once contracts are exchanged and timelines are fixed.

2. Biodiversity net gain is now a delivery issue as much as a planning issue

Biodiversity net gain has moved quickly from being a specialist workstream to being a mainstream delivery consideration. For schemes within the scope of mandatory BNG, developers need to demonstrate measurable uplift which is secured for a long period, and that requirement can affect land strategy, layout, cost and programme.

What makes BNG commercially important is that it cannot always be dealt with neatly at the end. Where BNG is designed in late, it can force changes to the site strategy at a point where design work, contractor procurement and funding assumptions are already advanced. Even where off-site solutions are available, the process introduces another layer of cost, documentation and timing risk that needs to be managed alongside the wider planning and delivery programme.

The practical point is that BNG is no longer a box to tick once permission is in. It is something developers need to plan for early, because it can affect viability and deliverability in ways that are difficult to unwind later.

3. Title issues are becoming deal-breakers, not negotiating points

A few years ago, buyers and funders were sometimes prepared to accept slightly unclear access rights or an easement that was not perfectly documented, particularly where a site had been operating in a workable way for years. In 2026, that tolerance is much lower. Investors want clean title, clear rights and minimal ambiguity.

The challenge is that many development sites come with historic complications: rights of way that were never properly granted, service strips that do not reflect what is on the ground, restrictive covenants limiting use, or access arrangements that depend on goodwill rather than enforceable documentation.

These are not always dramatic issues, but they are the kind that stall transactions and create late-stage renegotiation on price and terms. If you are buying a complex site in 2026, it is sensible to assume that your exit buyer will want everything documented perfected, registered and consistent. Resolving title and rights issues while you still have leverage with the seller is always cheaper than trying to fix them later.

4. ESG requirements are moving from aspiration into contract terms

Sustainability expectations are now embedded in many development discussions. The shift for developers is that these commitments are increasingly ending up in binding documents: funding agreements, forward sales and agreements for lease. Where a building is expected to achieve a certain performance standard, meet operational efficiency expectations, or align with a buyer’s internal sustainability requirements, that can quickly become a contractual obligation. If the building underperforms, the consequences are financial.

The risk is not only failing to hit a target. It is agreeing a target that is poorly defined or not properly flowed down through the project documentation. Disputes often arise where terms such as “net zero ready” or “highly efficient” are used loosely, or where assumptions in marketing materials are later treated as warranties even though that was not the intention.

Developers should ensure sustainability commitments are measurable, deliverable and reflected clearly in risk allocation. If your funding documentation or forward sale assumes a particular outcome, but your building contract and consultant appointments do not line up with that requirement, gaps will appearGaps tend to surface at completion, not during negotiations when they are easier to manage.

5. Construction contracts need to work when things go wrong, not just when everything goes to plan

Most construction contracts look acceptable at signing stage. The issues often emerge months into the programme when delay notices begin to land, or when a variation mechanism produces a cost outcome that neither party assumed at tender stage.

Developers are under pressure to get sites moving, and that pressure can translate into accepting contract terms that sound reasonable but weaken protection in practice. Broad force majeure drafting that captures routine disruption, extension of time provisions without clear evidential requirements, and variation clauses that allow open-ended pricing can all reduce commercial control when delivery issues arise.

In 2026, developers should assume that most schemes will face some disruption at some stage. Labour availability, design evolution, unforeseen ground conditions and supply chain constraints all have the potential to move programme and cost. The contract needs to function in that reality, not just in the best-case scenario.

This means enforceable and commercially meaningful liquidated damages, delay mechanisms that require proper substantiation, and variation provisions that protect against uncontrolled pricing. Done properly, the contract remains a practical tool for managing risk rather than a document that becomes relevant only when a dispute begins.

6. Your exit strategy needs to be built into the legal structure from day one

A development can be finished on time, on budget and fully let, and still encounter serious friction at exit if the documentation does not match what buyers and funders expect. Forward funders may require specific warranties and step-in rights. Investment buyers may expect collateral warranties from key consultants. Occupier-led sales often need a different set of protections and compliance comfort. These requirements are not interchangeable, and they are rarely easy to retrofit later.

Developers should expect detailed diligence at exit, particularly around the consistency of project documentation, clear chains of responsibility, and evidence of compliance with planning and building regulation requirements. If professional appointments do not include collateral warranty obligations, or if records of sign-off and deliverables are incomplete, those issues tend to surface at precisely the point the developer wants speed and certainty.

The legal work is not just about getting the building finished. It is about ensuring that when you come to sell, the buyer’s solicitor can review the pack without producing avoidable queries that slow the transaction or justify a reduction in price.Collecting your documentation as the development progresses is key. Developers who map exit requirements early, and build them into appointments, building contracts and leasing documentation, tend to find that completions and disposals move faster and with less last-minute negotiation.

Conclusion

For developers, 2026 rewards careful structuring more than optimism. The schemes that succeed will not necessarily be the ones that face fewer challenges. They will be the ones where legal, contractual and commercial risks were identified early and managed properly from the outset.

Planning, BNG, title, ESG commitments, delivery contracts and exit documentation are not separate workstreams. They are interconnected, and weakness in one area creates pressure across the whole scheme. The earlier these issues are identified and structured around, the more options remain available. By the time a problem becomes urgent, solutions become more expensive and negotiating positions tend to weaken.

The advantage belongs to developers who treat legal risk as something to manage proactively, not something to deal with only once it becomes visible to the rest of the deal team.