Example 01
- Issue
- Three lease-end dates are incomplete in the source file.
- Finding
- Needs review: the validation result flags the incomplete dates for analyst review.
ClearStrata / CRE resources
4 review groups
Commercial Rent-Roll Audit Checklist
A concise, practical checklist for a first-pass review of a commercial rent roll before acquisition underwriting or syndication review.
For Commercial real estate acquisition teams, syndicators, and credit analysts. Use this checklist with the source export, lease evidence, and related underwriting documents; you can use it without uploading a document. It supports analyst review; it does not perform validation or replace source-document and analyst judgment.
Work from the source roll
Start with an editable workbook or blank CSV, then use the printable checklist to compare each item with the source packet and your underwriting file.
Download the editable rent-roll audit workbook (XLSX)Download the blank rent-roll audit template (CSV)Try the anonymous high-level rent-roll audit preview
No login required. The blank workbook and CSV open in spreadsheet apps.
CSV fill-in guidance
- Use one row per unit or suite, copying lease and rent details from the source roll.
- Enter dates consistently and keep a source/evidence reference.
- Leave unknowns blank; record exceptions in review status, follow-up, or notes.
- Reconcile totals to the source roll before relying on it.
Upload a supported rent roll or T12 to see the existing anonymous preview with high-level counts and flagged-item totals.
The working checklist
Four passes through the rent roll
Mark evidence as you review it, and keep unresolved questions explicit for the deal team.
01
Source and scope
Establish what the roll represents before interpreting its numbers.
1.1
Confirm the as-of date and the reporting period covered by the roll.
Why it matters: A dated snapshot keeps the rent roll aligned with the underwriting case and the deal timeline.
Evidence: Record the as-of date, export date, and any stated period in the source file.
Risk surfaced: A stale or unclear snapshot can make current occupancy and lease timing appear different from the deal evidence.
1.2
Identify the source file, export type, and property or portfolio scope.
Why it matters: The reviewer needs a traceable starting point for every total and exception.
Evidence: Keep the original filename, system export label, property name, and any source notes.
Risk surfaced: An incomplete source trail leaves unresolved questions about which property or export was reviewed.
1.3
Compare the stated property count and unit count with the acquisition materials.
Why it matters: Scope mismatches can change the denominator for occupancy, concentration, and rent totals.
Evidence: Cross-check property and unit counts against the offering materials or asset schedule.
Risk surfaced: Missing, duplicated, or out-of-scope units may distort the underwriting snapshot.
1.4
Review rentable area, occupied area, vacant area, and stated occupancy or vacancy.
Why it matters: Area and occupancy are foundational inputs for income and vacancy assumptions.
Evidence: Record the rentable square feet, occupied square feet, vacant square feet, and stated percentages.
Risk surfaced: Area or occupancy definitions that do not reconcile can obscure the actual vacancy exposure.
1.5
Reconcile row counts, area totals, and rent totals to the source summary.
Why it matters: A roll-up check shows whether the visible rows represent the stated scope.
Evidence: Note the source summary values and the analyst recalculation used for comparison.
Risk surfaced: A total mismatch is an evidence gap to resolve before relying on derived rent metrics.
02
Lease and tenant terms
Review the fields that connect each row to lease economics and evidence.
2.1
Confirm tenant name, unit or suite identifier, and row identity.
Why it matters: Stable row identity is needed to connect rent data with leases and follow-up evidence.
Evidence: Match tenant and unit identifiers to the rent roll and available lease records.
Risk surfaced: Ambiguous identity can hide duplicate rows or prevent a reviewer from locating the supporting lease.
2.2
Check leased square feet and the area basis used for rent calculations.
Why it matters: The area basis affects rent per square foot and comparisons across tenants.
Evidence: Record the row area and confirm whether the source uses rentable or another stated area basis.
Risk surfaced: A mixed or missing area basis can make tenant economics difficult to compare.
2.3
Review base rent, billing frequency, and rent per square foot.
Why it matters: These fields form the row-level income view used in underwriting.
Evidence: Capture the stated base rent, period, and calculated or source rent per square foot.
Risk surfaced: An unusual rent rate or period mismatch can signal a data issue or a term needing explanation.
2.4
Review lease start dates, expiration dates, and any renewal or extension dates shown.
Why it matters: Lease timing drives rollover exposure and the period over which current rent may persist.
Evidence: Compare dates to lease abstracts or executed lease evidence when present.
Risk surfaced: Missing or conflicting dates can hide near-term rollover or create an unsupported hold period.
2.5
Identify contractual escalations and the dates they take effect.
Why it matters: Escalations affect forward rent assumptions and should be distinguished from current base rent.
Evidence: Record the escalation amount or rate, effective date, and lease source location.
Risk surfaced: An assumed escalation without lease evidence can overstate future rent.
2.6
Capture concessions, abatements, and free-rent periods separately from face rent.
Why it matters: Concessions change effective economics even when the face rent looks unchanged.
Evidence: Note the concession type, amount, timing, and supporting lease or amendment.
Risk surfaced: Uncaptured free rent can make current income appear higher than the effective lease economics.
2.7
Review deposits, renewal options, termination rights, and other material options when present.
Why it matters: These terms can affect cash exposure and the expected duration of occupancy.
Evidence: Mark each term as present, absent, or unresolved and point to the source lease evidence.
Risk surfaced: Unreviewed options or deposits can leave material lease terms outside the underwriting case.
2.8
Note guaranty information and lease evidence availability when present.
Why it matters: Evidence availability helps the reviewer understand which tenant terms are documented.
Evidence: Record the guaranty type or status and the lease or amendment reference.
Risk surfaced: A missing guaranty or lease reference is an unresolved evidence gap, not an assumption to fill silently.
03
Reconciliation
Tie row-level terms to the income view used in the underwriting file.
3.1
Compare face rent with effective rent after concessions and abatements.
Why it matters: The two figures answer different questions and should not be substituted for one another.
Evidence: Show the source face rent, concession treatment, and effective-rent calculation or note.
Risk surfaced: Using face rent where effective rent is needed can overstate near-term income.
3.2
Check monthly, annualized, and recurring rent values for the same period and basis.
Why it matters: Consistent periods prevent an otherwise plausible row from entering the model at the wrong scale.
Evidence: Document the period conversion and any non-recurring rent excluded from annualized rent.
Risk surfaced: A period mismatch can materially change the income line without being obvious in the source row.
3.3
Review vacant, occupied-zero-rent, and other zero-rent rows individually.
Why it matters: Zero rent can represent vacancy, free rent, a data omission, or a special arrangement.
Evidence: Assign a source-supported explanation or mark the row for follow-up.
Risk surfaced: Treating every zero-rent row as ordinary vacancy can misstate both current income and loss assumptions.
3.4
Cross-check the reviewed totals against the source export after row-level adjustments.
Why it matters: The final reconciliation should show which differences are explained and which remain open.
Evidence: Retain the source total, reviewed total, difference, and explanation for each material variance.
Risk surfaced: Unexplained variance weakens the connection between the rent roll and the underwriting file.
3.5
Compare rent-roll income with related underwriting documents such as T12s where available.
Why it matters: A cross-document view can surface timing, classification, or scope differences.
Evidence: Record the compared period, income line, source document, and explanation for material differences.
Risk surfaced: A rent roll and T12 that do not tell the same story require documented follow-up before reliance.
04
Underwriting risk review
Turn exceptions into explicit questions for the deal team and source review.
4.1
List lease rollover and near-term expirations by tenant, area, and rent.
Why it matters: Concentrated expirations can affect the timing and size of the vacancy question.
Evidence: Use lease dates, tenant area, rent, and any documented renewal status.
Risk surfaced: Near-term rollover without a documented plan can create an open underwriting risk.
4.2
Flag month-to-month, holdover, or otherwise uncertain lease terms.
Why it matters: These terms may not provide the same duration or rent visibility as a fixed lease term.
Evidence: Record the term status, current rent, notice terms, and available lease evidence.
Risk surfaced: Unresolved holdover status can make the expected occupancy period unclear.
4.3
List missing dates, missing rent fields, and other material blank values.
Why it matters: A blank field needs a deliberate treatment before it enters an assumption or calculation.
Evidence: Track the row, missing field, requested source, and review status.
Risk surfaced: Unresolved blanks can propagate into unsupported lease or income assumptions.
4.4
Investigate unusual rent levels, outlier rent per square foot, and unusual concessions.
Why it matters: Outliers may be explainable, but they should be visible in the review record.
Evidence: Compare the row with nearby tenants, lease terms, amendments, and source notes.
Risk surfaced: An unexplained outlier can distort the income view or conceal a special term.
4.5
Assess tenant concentration by rent, area, and near-term expiration exposure.
Why it matters: A small number of tenants may represent a large share of the income or rollover case.
Evidence: Record the leading tenants, their share of rent or area, and the relevant lease dates.
Risk surfaced: Concentration can leave the underwriting case sensitive to one tenant decision.
4.6
Check for duplicate tenants, duplicate units, and conflicting row versions.
Why it matters: Duplicate or conflicting rows can inflate counts, area, and rent totals.
Evidence: Compare identity fields, source row references, and the resolution selected by the reviewer.
Risk surfaced: An unresolved duplicate can affect both scope totals and tenant-level conclusions.
4.7
Compare vacancy and bad-debt assumptions with the observed rows and documented support.
Why it matters: Assumptions should be distinguishable from observed rent-roll facts.
Evidence: Record the observed vacancy or zero-rent rows, the model assumption, and its support.
Risk surfaced: An assumption that is not tied to the observed roll may hide a gap in the underwriting case.
4.8
Maintain an open list of unresolved evidence gaps and assign the next review action.
Why it matters: A clear handoff keeps unresolved questions visible as the deal advances.
Evidence: For each gap, record the missing document or field, owner, requested date, and status.
Risk surfaced: Untracked gaps can be mistaken for reviewed terms when the source packet is incomplete.
How this fits ClearStrata
From source file to underwriting review
The checklist stands on its own. If you use the product, these are the existing handoffs around the review.
01
Upload
Optionally bring a supported rent roll or T12 into the existing anonymous preview flow.
02
Validate
Review the existing row and source checks, then keep flagged items visible for follow-up.
03
Export
Use the existing CSV, XLSX, and PDF outputs when you need to carry review context forward.
04
Underwrite
Carry normalized records and audit-trail context into the analyst’s underwriting review.
Related diligence content
Related CRE validation guardrails
Five source groups to help an analyst frame checks, evidence, and follow-up before relying on acquisition inputs.
01
Rent rolls
Establish the rent roll as a dated, traceable source before using it in acquisition underwriting.
1.1
Confirm the rent-roll as-of date, property scope, unit count, and area basis.
Why it matters: A clear denominator and reporting date keep occupancy, rent, and concentration conclusions tied to the same snapshot.
Expected evidence: Retain the source export, stated as-of date, property or portfolio identifier, unit count, and rentable-area definition.
Risk or follow-up: A stale, duplicated, or out-of-scope roll can make the acquisition case appear more complete than the source packet supports.
1.2
Reconcile row counts, area totals, occupied area, vacancy, and rent totals to the source summary.
Why it matters: Totals reveal whether the visible rows represent the full population used in the underwriting view.
Expected evidence: Record source totals, analyst recalculations, material differences, and the explanation or follow-up for each difference.
Risk or follow-up: Unexplained total differences should remain open rather than being absorbed into an assumption.
1.3
Review base rent, lease dates, escalations, concessions, and zero-rent rows by tenant or unit.
Why it matters: Row-level lease economics distinguish current income from timing, vacancy, and effective-rent questions.
Expected evidence: Match material rows to lease abstracts, executed leases, amendments, and a source-supported explanation for exceptions.
Risk or follow-up: Unreviewed concessions, expirations, or zero-rent rows can distort the forward income and rollover view.
02
T12s
Use the trailing twelve-month operating statement as a dated income and expense cross-check.
2.1
Confirm the T12 period, fiscal or calendar basis, and any annualization used in the model.
Why it matters: A period mismatch can make an operating result look comparable when it covers a different set of months.
Expected evidence: Record the statement period, source report, annualization method, and any partial-period treatment.
Risk or follow-up: An unmarked period or annualization change can shift NOI and valuation inputs without a visible source explanation.
2.2
Tie material T12 income and expense lines to the source operating statement or general-ledger support.
Why it matters: Line-level traceability shows which amounts are observed and which require normalization or follow-up.
Expected evidence: Keep the line description, period amount, source reference, classification, and analyst reconciliation note.
Risk or follow-up: Unmapped or reclassified lines can change NOI while appearing to be a simple model update.
2.3
Identify one-time items, vacancy, bad debt, reimbursements, and other adjustments separately from recurring operations.
Why it matters: A normalized operating view depends on distinguishing recurring operating results from transaction-specific or timing items.
Expected evidence: List each adjustment, its amount and period, the supporting source, and the treatment proposed for underwriting.
Risk or follow-up: A one-time item carried forward or removed without support can overstate or understate the operating case.
03
Lease abstracts
Compare the abstracted lease terms with the executed lease evidence that supports the rent-roll economics.
3.1
Match each material lease abstract to the executed lease, amendment, or other identified source document.
Why it matters: The abstract is a useful summary only when its source and revision are clear.
Expected evidence: Record the tenant or suite reference, source document name and date, amendment coverage, and unresolved source gaps.
Risk or follow-up: An abstract without source support can turn a summary error into an unsupported underwriting input.
3.2
Verify commencement, expiration, options, base rent, escalations, concessions, and reimbursement terms.
Why it matters: These terms drive rollover timing, effective rent, and the expected income path.
Expected evidence: Compare abstract fields to the lease pages or amendments and note the exact follow-up for any mismatch.
Risk or follow-up: A missing option, escalation, or concession can change the timing or size of the income case.
3.3
Flag missing pages, ambiguous terms, and unresolved conflicts instead of silently completing the abstract.
Why it matters: Visible uncertainty lets the deal team assign a source request or conservative treatment.
Expected evidence: Maintain an issue log with the lease reference, missing evidence, owner, requested date, and review status.
Risk or follow-up: Untracked lease evidence gaps can be mistaken for reviewed and confirmed terms.
04
Deposit ledgers
Reconcile deposit balances and activity to the tenant, lease, and cash-supporting records in the source packet.
4.1
Match each deposit-ledger entry to the tenant, unit, lease, and applicable reporting date.
Why it matters: Stable identity prevents balances from being attributed to the wrong tenant or carried across a scope change.
Expected evidence: Retain the ledger export, tenant or unit reference, lease reference, as-of date, and any unmatched-entry list.
Risk or follow-up: Unmatched or duplicated entries can obscure the actual deposit exposure and related follow-up.
4.2
Reconcile deposits held, applied, returned, and transferred to the ledger total and supporting records.
Why it matters: A movement-based view distinguishes the current balance from historical activity and open obligations.
Expected evidence: Document opening balance, additions, applications, returns, transfers, ending balance, and the source for each material movement.
Risk or follow-up: A balance that does not reconcile may require cash, lease, or tenant-level investigation before reliance.
4.3
Investigate missing deposits, unusual credits, negative balances, and entries that disagree with lease terms.
Why it matters: Exceptions can signal incomplete source data or a lease-specific treatment that belongs in the review record.
Expected evidence: Link each exception to the lease clause, accounting entry, correspondence, or explicit request for additional source support.
Risk or follow-up: Unresolved ledger exceptions can leave cash exposure and tenant obligations mischaracterized.
05
Related acquisition inputs / source-packet readiness
Confirm that related acquisition inputs are present, scoped, and ready for a documented analyst review.
5.1
Inventory the offering materials, asset schedule, rent rolls, T12s, lease abstracts, deposit ledgers, and other requested inputs.
Why it matters: A source-packet inventory makes missing evidence visible before conclusions are carried into the model.
Expected evidence: Maintain a document index with source type, property scope, as-of date, revision or filename, and receipt status.
Risk or follow-up: An incomplete packet can make a clean-looking review reflect only the documents that happened to arrive first.
5.2
Compare property, unit, period, and ownership scope across the acquisition inputs before cross-document reconciliation.
Why it matters: Cross-checks are meaningful only when the documents describe the same assets and time frame.
Expected evidence: Record the scope fields used for comparison and note any property, period, unit, or portfolio-level differences.
Risk or follow-up: A scope mismatch can look like an operating variance when it is actually a source-packet boundary issue.
5.3
Assign a next action for every missing, stale, conflicting, or unreadable acquisition input.
Why it matters: A clear handoff keeps unresolved source questions active through underwriting and diligence review.
Expected evidence: Track the requested document or clarification, responsible owner, due date, status, and conservative interim treatment.
Risk or follow-up: Unassigned follow-up can turn a known evidence gap into an accidental assumption.
Illustrative findings
CRE validation examples
SAMPLE / ANONYMIZED
These examples use fictional data only and contain no customer information.
Example 02
- Issue
- Check that annual scheduled rent agrees between the rent roll and normalized T12 income line.
- Finding
- Both amounts are $1,152,000 with a $0 delta; the reconciliation is marked Reconciled.