What We Do
Our Story
Core Values
Meet the Team
Our Approach
A strong acquisition thesis does not eliminate the need for diligence.
It makes diligence more important.
The Scottsdale small-bay industrial portfolio initially presented many of the characteristics Hanson Capital looks for: an infill location, high occupancy, limited competing supply, diversified tenant demand, and a clear opportunity to capture the spread between existing and market rents.
But compelling assets still have to earn their way through the acquisition process.
During diligence, Hanson Capital identified nearly $1 million of near-term capital exposure that had not been carried in the original underwriting. Rather than absorb those costs and weaken the investment basis, the team quantified the risk, returned to the seller, and negotiated a resolution that preserved the core economics of the opportunity.
That is what diligence is designed to do.
Why Scottsdale Fit the Investment Thesis
The portfolio consists of two small-bay industrial parks within Scottsdale Airpark:
- Park 1 at 82nd and Hartford
- Park 2 at 73rd and Evans
- 89,533 total square feet
- 30 individual bays
- Approximately 2,900 square feet per bay
- 97% current occupancy
Scottsdale Airpark is a constrained industrial submarket with approximately 14 million square feet of total inventory. Northeast Valley industrial vacancy is approximately 6.3%, compared with 12.4% across the broader Phoenix metropolitan market.
More important than the headline statistics is the type of supply available.
New industrial construction increasingly favors larger distribution facilities. Small, functional industrial bays serving trades, contractors, service businesses, light manufacturers, and other local operators remain difficult to replicate in established infill locations.
That scarcity supported the original thesis: acquire functional small-bay industrial space below replacement cost and create value through disciplined leasing and active operations.
The location, occupancy, and tenant profile remained attractive.
The question was whether the physical condition supported the original basis.
What Diligence Revealed
As Hanson Capital moved through physical diligence, the team identified capital requirements that materially exceeded the initial assumptions.
The primary findings included:
- A full roof recoat across both the buildings
- A significant group of HVAC units at or near the end of useful life
- Totaling nearly $1 million of near-term capital exposure
These were not cosmetic improvements or optional upgrades.
They were building-system costs that could affect near-term cash flow, capital reserves, and the return on the overall investment.
Discovering those needs did not make Scottsdale a bad asset. Industrial properties require maintenance, and capital work is often part of responsible ownership.
The underwriting issue was that the costs had not been reflected in the original transaction underwriting economics.
Why the NNN Lease Structure Mattered
Triple-net lease structures can support efficient industrial operations by passing many property-level expenses through to tenants.
But NNN does not mean the landlord is insulated from every capital requirement.
When roofs, HVAC systems, or other major building components require near-term investment, the remaining lease term becomes important. If there is not enough time to recover or amortize those costs through the existing lease structure, the new owner may inherit a larger share of the exposure than the initial model assumed.
That was the central issue in Scottsdale.
The question was not whether the work could be completed.
The question was whether Hanson Capital and its investors should bear the cost of conditions that existed before acquisition and were not reflected in the agreed basis.
Turning Diligence Into a Better Outcome
Hanson Capital did not assume the additional exposure could simply be absorbed after closing.
The team quantified the roof and HVAC requirements and returned to the seller with a direct position: the unexpected capital burden needed to be reflected in the economics of the transaction.
The seller ultimately agreed to cover the roof overlay and the near-term HVAC replacement costs identified during diligence.
That resolution protected the acquisition basis without requiring Hanson Capital to abandon an otherwise compelling portfolio.
This is an important distinction.
Negotiation discipline is not about extracting concessions for their own sake. It is about ensuring the final transaction accurately reflects the condition of the asset and the capital required to execute the business plan.
Why Hanson Capital Released Contingencies
Once the unexpected roof and HVAC exposure was resolved, the portfolio’s core investment thesis remained intact.
The assets continued to offer:
- High occupancy
- Diversified small-bay tenancy
- Functional unit sizes
- A supply-constrained Scottsdale location
- Pricing well below estimated replacement cost
- Embedded rent growth potential
With the newly identified capital burden addressed, Hanson Capital released contingencies and moved toward closing.
The decision was not driven by transaction momentum or the desire to complete a 1031 exchange on schedule.
Scottsdale advanced because the asset still met Hanson Capital’s standards after the verified risks were incorporated and resolved.
What Investors Should Learn From Scottsdale
Diligence is not meant to prove that the first underwriting model was correct.
It is meant to test whether the investment thesis remains valid after the facts are known.
Sometimes that process reveals risk that cannot be priced appropriately, and the disciplined decision is to walk away.
Other times, as in Scottsdale, the asset remains compelling, but the economics need to be renegotiated before the investment can proceed.
A disciplined operator does not expect every property to be problem-free. The real responsibility is to identify which risks are manageable, determine who should bear the cost, and refuse to inherit exposure that has not been properly priced.
This matters in any acquisition, but it becomes especially important during a 1031 exchange. The exchange timeline may create urgency, yet the deadline should never reduce the authority of the diligence process.
Hanson Capital did not force Scottsdale to fit the exchange.
The team required the transaction to earn its place within it.
Strategic Takeaway
The Scottsdale portfolio is not compelling because diligence uncovered no issues.
It is compelling because the process identified meaningful exposure, quantified it, and produced a seller resolution that preserved the basis.
That is the difference between passive deal execution and active investment management.
For Hanson Capital, releasing contingencies was not an act of momentum.
It was the result of the underwriting process working as intended.
Discuss Current Industrial Opportunities
Schedule a discussion with Hanson Capital to evaluate current small-bay industrial opportunities and potential 1031 exchange replacement property options.
