Mixed-Use Commercial Purchase: Flood Coverage, HMDA, and Force Placement
Northgate Bank receives a $2.4 million loan request from Oak Street Holdings, LLC to purchase a four-unit building. The ground floor is leased retail space occupying 35% of the building's square footage; the three upstairs units are apartments. The LLC's managing member will occupy one apartment and lease the other two. Appraised value is $2.8 million. The property sits in FEMA Zone AE, the community participates in the NFIP, and the borrower carries no flood insurance today. The borrower wants a 20-year term with 25-year amortization, and the bank will hold the loan on balance sheet. The loan officer pre-filled the HMDA worksheet as 'not reportable - business purpose' and told the closing team to 'skip the flood stuff, it's a commercial deal.'
1. How much flood insurance must Northgate require at closing, and what is wrong with the loan officer's instruction?
Read the worked answer
Rule. Flood requirements do not turn on business purpose. Under 12 CFR 339.3, a bank may not make a loan secured by improved real estate in a special flood hazard area unless the building (and any contents required to be covered) is insured for the life of the loan. The required amount is the lesser of: (a) the outstanding principal balance, (b) the value of the improved real property, or (c) the maximum NFIP limit available for that type of property.
Classification is the judgment call. NFIP treats a building as residential only when it is used primarily for residential purposes; a building that is 35% retail by square footage is likely non-residential, capping NFIP building coverage at $500,000.
Lesser-of math. Balance $2,400,000 vs. value $2,800,000 vs. NFIP cap $500,000 → the required amount is $500,000. The borrower is not obligated by the regulation to carry $2.4 million, and the bank cannot demand '$2.4 million of NFIP coverage' because that coverage does not exist.
Additional steps. Obtain a compliant determination and retain it; document the residential/non-residential analysis and who made it; deliver the flood notice to the borrower; obtain proof of coverage before disbursement. The bank may require private flood coverage to close the $1.9 million gap - prudent for safety and soundness - but the mandatory purchase requirement alone does not compel it. The officer's instruction to skip flood is itself an exception-item finding and a training issue.
2. The loan officer marked the loan 'not reportable - business purpose' for HMDA. Is that defensible? Show the analysis.
Read the worked answer
No - it is a conclusion without a documented analysis. Two questions control, and business purpose alone does not end the inquiry.
Question 1: Is the loan secured by a dwelling? Regulation C defines a dwelling as a residential structure; mixed-use property requires a determination of whether the structure is used primarily for residential purposes. At 35% retail square footage, the answer is genuinely arguable. It must be reasoned, documented, and consistent across the portfolio - not guessed by a lending officer.
Question 2: Does the business-purpose exclusion apply? Under 12 CFR 1003.3(c)(10), loans primarily for business or commercial purposes are excluded, but the exclusion does not extend to home purchase loans and home improvement loans. If the building is a dwelling, this loan - made to purchase it - falls in that carve-out and is reportable, notwithstanding the LLC borrower.
What the file should contain. The property use analysis with square footage and rent roll support; the dwelling conclusion; and, if reportable, the full data set captured at application and closing. If the bank concludes it is not a dwelling, retain the reasoning.
Risk. Independently of this loan, a pre-filled boilerplate exclusion is a control defect. Sample the commercial portfolio for other mixed-use files and test whether the same shortcut was used.
3. Closing arrives and the borrower has produced no evidence of coverage. What may the bank do, and on what timeline?
Read the worked answer
Rule. Under 12 CFR 339.7, when the bank determines at any time that required flood insurance is not in place, it must notify the borrower of the need to obtain it. If the borrower does not obtain coverage within 45 days of the notice, the bank may purchase coverage on the borrower's behalf and may charge the borrower for premiums and related fees.
But the sequencing here is a problem. The mandatory purchase requirement attaches at origination - the bank may not close and disburse without coverage in place. Force placement is the remedy for a lapse during the life of the loan, not a mechanism for closing without insurance. So:
- Do not disburse. Obtain a binder for at least $500,000 effective at closing, or restructure the closing date.
- If funds were already disbursed, send the 339.7 notice immediately, document the date, and monitor the 45-day clock; force place only after it runs.
- Force-placed coverage must be at least the required amount and term; when the borrower later produces a compliant policy, cancel the force-placed policy and refund overlapping premiums.
- Fees charged to the borrower must be authorized by the loan documents and must not exceed actual cost plus permitted charges - UDAAP applies to force-placement administration.
- Escalate: a closing without flood coverage is a reportable violation and indicates the closing checklist has no hard stop.