More
Request a demo
Menu
Menu
Case studies

Seven real runs, start to finish

What went in, what came back and what it changed for the desk. Each one is a real run on a building or a package, shown as a sample: addresses, names and identifying details withheld.

01 · Investment firms

A pre-war multifamily, from the address alone (sample)

The question
No seller package yet. Is the building worth a model, and what should the model start from?
What we were given
The address.
What came back
Year 1 NOI of $171,703, a 4.29% going-in cap rate at the last recorded sale, and a 12-sheet workbook with live formulas.
What it changed
The model starts from dated figures, and the desk goes into the first seller call with four questions already written: the unit count (21 or 26), the lien flag, the zoning letter and the recertification.

Engine run 26021. Each case is one real run of the Titleman engine on a Titleman test account; the run number and completion date are under the case. Figures are as the run returned them; addresses and names are withheld.

Pre-war multifamily, Sun Belt metro (sample)Acquisitions workspaceReady
  • RecordPre-war multifamilyTwo records disagree21 or 26units on record
  • UnderwriteIncome & NOI$171,703Year 1 NOI
  • CheckRisksNeeds review4red flags
Underwriting

Ready for your model

Year 1 NOI
$171,703
Going-in cap rate
4.29%
Last recorded sale
$4,000,000
Units on record
21 or 26
Workbook
12 sheets
4 red flags for your reviewOpen the workbook →
about 58 minutes · median of 44 production runs, 30 days to 18 October 2026Run on 4 October 2026 as a benchmark, shown as a sample with the address withheld. Not a client deal.See the worked example →
02 · Lenders

A 50-unit loft conversion: which part of the NOI the file supports

The question
The broker’s in-place NOI looked rich. Credit needed to know how much of the lift the seller’s own documents support.
What we were given
The broker OM, the January rent roll and the trailing twelve months.
What came back
A lender NOI of $517,544 against the broker’s $614,475, line by line, each figure with its page or cell.
What it changed
The $147,595 a year between the broker’s in-place NOI and the trailing actual is laid out line by line: insurance, maintenance and contract services are cuts the T-12 does not support. How much of it a loan carries stays the credit team’s call.
A 50-unit loft conversionCredit workspaceReady
  • Tie outRent roll against T-12Agree
  • CompareT-12 against OM in-placeGap+$147,595a year
  • UnderwriteLender NOI$517,544a year
Bottom line for credit

The gap is in the pro forma

T-12 actual NOI
$466.9K
Titleman lender NOI
$517.5K
Broker in-place NOI
$614.5K
Insurance, maintenance and contract services cuts not supported by the T-12Open the real packages →
about 58 minutes · median of 44 production runs, 30 days to 18 October 2026From a real loan package. Names removed, every money figure scaled by one factor; ratios unchanged.Open the real packages →
03 · Developers

A fire-damaged retail lot: what may be built, and how much fits

The question
What may legally be built on the lot under today’s rules, and does a redevelopment pencil?
What we were given
The address.
What came back
Floor area ratio binds at 31,500 SF on a 21,000 SF lot; height and setbacks alone would allow 82,000 SF. A test scheme of 26 homes over shops, and a workbook in which the land value moves when an input changes.
What it changed
Capacity is set by floor area, not height: a scheme drawn to the height limit would be about 2.6 times too large (82,000 ÷ 31,500).
A fire-damaged retail lotDevelopment workspaceReady
  • HeightHeight and setbacks82,000SF
  • FARFloor area ratio 1.5Binds31,500SF binds
  • SchemeTest scheme26homes over shops
Underwriting

Floor area binds, not height

Lot
21,000 SF
Buildable, FAR binds
31,500 SF
Height would allow
82,000 SF
Test scheme
26 homes
A demolition permit is applied for and not issuedOpen the real packages →
about 27 minutes · median of 76 production runs, 30 days to 18 October 2026From a real lot. Street and owners removed; depth and money scaled, areas and ratios unchanged.Open the real packages →
04 · Owners and asset managers

A listed 156-unit apartment property: what it is worth today

The question
An owner needs an as-is value, the supportable loan and a refinance-or-sell view on a property listed as 156 apartments.
What we were given
The address.
What came back
The records show 3.24 acres of land and no building standing: the 156 units are a planned project. Value as is: $2,640,000 to $3,000,000, anchored on the site’s recorded sale of $2,639,816 ($16,923 per approved unit) and the asking price of $3,000,000.
What it changed
The listing’s 156 units are caught before anyone builds a model on them. With no rent yet, an income approach cannot carry the value, so the opinion rests on the site, and the owner’s refinance test is run on the finished building, not on today’s.

Engine run 26655, completed 29 Oct 2026. Each case is one real run of the Titleman engine on a Titleman test account; the run number and completion date are under the case. Figures are as the run returned them; addresses and names are withheld.

An apartment project listed as 156 units (sample)UnderwritingReady
  • RecordLand on record, 3.24 acres0buildings standing
  • SaleLast recorded sale of the site$2.64Mrecorded sale
  • ValuePer approved unitListing says 156 built$16,923per unit
Underwriting

As is: $2.64M to $3.00M, a site, not a building

Listed
156 units
Built today
None
Land
3.24 acres
Value as is
$2.64M to $3.00M
Per approved unit
$16,923
No rent, NOI or DSCR exists yet, so the income approach cannot carry an as-is valueOpen the opinion →
about 58 minutes · median of 44 production runs, 30 days to 18 October 2026A sample from a Titleman run: name and address withheld, figures re-scaled. Not a client deal.How Underwriting works →
05 · Corporate real estate

Three vacant pads, one side-by-side for a drive-thru prototype

The question
A broker’s shortlist of three vacant pads. Which of them fits a 2,800 SF drive-thru with a 12-car stack and 35 stalls, before anyone visits?
What we were given
One typed message: the three pads and the prototype. No files.
What came back
A side-by-side comparison, a live Excel workbook, a site-rules report and a deck in 49 minutes: 161 records and 84 pages read, 94 figures each with its source, 9 red flags and 7 open items.
What it changed
Drainage takes the most land: after the prototype, the building line and the pond, the tightest pad keeps 16,216 SF and the roomiest 25,656 SF. The team walks in knowing which pad the pond decides. The choice of site stays with them.

Engine run 26177, completed 16 Oct 2026. Each case is one real run of the Titleman engine on a Titleman test account; the run number and completion date are under the case. Figures are as the run returned them; addresses and names are withheld.

Three vacant pads on one corridor, large Texas metro (sample)Development workspaceReady
  • ReadRecords and pages read161records, 84 pages
  • FitLand left after prototype, building line and pond16,216 SFon the tightest pad
  • FlagAgainst the recordOpen items: 79red flags
Site comparison

Drainage takes the most land

Pads compared
3
Figures with a source
94
Red flags
9
Open items
7
Run time
49 minutes
The pond, not the building, decides how much of each pad is leftOpen the comparison →
Delivered in 49 minutes for three padsFrom a real run. Streets, owners and the corridor removed; areas and counts unchanged.Titleman for corporate real estate →
06 · Underwriting

Six files on their way to committee, every item checked

The question
A development package was going to the investment committee. Do the OM, the model and the memo agree with each other and with the market?
What we were given
Six files: the OM, the deal model, the memo and three more.
What came back
1,788 figures, formulas and statements checked, 876 formulas recomputed by code, 14 cross-file checks: 6 red flags and 46 items to review, marked on a copy of the files, in about 78 minutes.
What it changed
The memo says 74 units per acre, the model says 100. That is caught before committee, together with every figure built on the wrong one.

Engine run 26147. Each case is one real run of the Titleman engine on a Titleman test account; the run number and completion date are under the case. Figures are as the run returned them; addresses and names are withheld.

A development package, six filesUnderwritingReady
  • RecomputeFormulas, by code876recomputed
  • Tie outCross-file checks14checks
  • FlagAgainst the marketCan change the decision6red flags
Underwriting

Nothing left unchecked

Checked
1,788
Formulas recomputed
876
To review
46
Red flags
6
Density is 74 u/ac in the memo and 100 u/ac in the modelOpen the marked copy →
Delivered in about 78 minutes, end to endOur test case: a six-file development package reviewed in October 2026.How Underwriting works →
07 · Signals

Texas loans coming due: a refinancing list for a brokerage

The question
Which commercial loans in Texas mature in the next 24 months, and on which buildings, before anyone else calls the owner?
What we were given
The territory and the window.
What came back
260 loans maturing in 24 months, 76 of them in Houston, $4.5 billion coming due.
What it changed
A call list with the property, the balance, the maturity date and the owner on every row, refreshed every week.
Texas, next 24 monthsSignalsReady
  • ScanStatewide260loans
  • MetroHouston76loans
  • BalanceComing due$4.5Bin 24 months
Signals

Your refinancing list

Loans maturing
260
In Houston
76
Coming due
$4.5B
Each row: the property, the balance, the maturity date and the ownerOpen the list →
Delivered weekly to email or your CRMCounts from our October list, as posted.How Signals works →

Examples for a company like yours

From independent practitioners to large institutions: find your segment, then see how the work fits your company.

Illustrative workflows, not client case results. Your existing tools send work to our AI engine for real estate; the answer comes back where your team works. Scope, coverage and delivery are agreed during setup. Your team reviews the evidence and makes the decision.

Brokers

Signals · Sourcing

Find the next owner to call

The question
A broker wants an owner list for apartment buildings in a target territory.
What you send
The territory, property criteria and the prospect list the firm already uses.
What to review
A property and owner list with the available facts and gaps marked, ready for the broker to review before outreach.
Small firms and independent practitioners
An independent broker reviews the list in a spreadsheet and chooses whom to call.
Midsize firms
A regional brokerage gives each territory lead the relevant buildings for review in its CRM.
Large firms and institutions
A national brokerage starts with a local team, agrees the matching rules and reviews coverage before extending to other offices.

Acquisition & investment teams

Underwriting · Screening

Screen an acquisition pipeline

The question
An investment team needs to decide which incoming deals deserve a full review.
What you send
The candidate addresses, asking prices and the investment criteria.
What to review
A comparison of available property facts and valuation evidence, with missing inputs called out for the next seller conversation.
Small firms and independent practitioners
A small investment firm reviews the shortlist with its principal in the spreadsheet it already uses.
Midsize firms
A midsize investment firm gives its analysts a consistent starting point for their deal models.
Large firms and institutions
An institutional investment firm compares the evidence across regional teams before assigning full diligence.

Lenders & debt funds

Underwriting · Investment and credit committees

Prepare a credit committee review

The question
A lender needs to understand whether the borrower package supports the proposed loan.
What you send
The offering memorandum, rent roll, operating statements and proposed loan terms.
What to review
A credit memo and live model with supported inputs, discrepancies and open questions for the credit team.
Small firms and independent practitioners
A small private lender reviews the model directly with the decision maker.
Midsize firms
A regional lender routes the memo through its existing credit review process.
Large firms and institutions
A large lender applies its agreed review criteria within the pilot team before expanding to other lending groups.

Developers

Underwriting · Underwriting

Check a development rent assumption

The question
A developer needs evidence for the rents in a proposed building’s unit mix.
What you send
The site address, proposed unit mix and rents in the development model.
What to review
Market rent evidence and the assumptions that still need confirmation, for the developer to use in the model.
Small firms and independent practitioners
A small developer checks the rent assumptions before committing more design work.
Midsize firms
A midsize developer shares the evidence with its development and finance leads.
Large firms and institutions
A large developer compares the assumptions used by project teams while keeping each local market’s evidence visible.

REITs & asset managers

Underwriting · Reporting

Support a portfolio valuation mark

The question
An asset manager needs current sales evidence behind a quarterly property mark.
What you send
The property address, asset details and the mark being reviewed.
What to review
Comparable sales, adjustments and gaps for the asset manager’s valuation review.
Small firms and independent practitioners
A small asset manager reviews the evidence with the principal before issuing the investor report.
Midsize firms
A midsize manager attaches the evidence to its existing quarterly valuation workbook.
Large firms and institutions
An institutional manager gives portfolio reviewers a consistent evidence trail, with exceptions retained for sign-off.

Family offices & private investors

Underwriting · Financing

Review a refinancing term sheet

The question
A family office wants to understand a lender’s proposal against the building’s cash flow.
What you send
The property’s operating files and the lender’s term sheet.
What to review
A model showing the proposed financing against the supplied operating assumptions, with unsupported inputs identified.
Small firms and independent practitioners
A small family office reviews the financing questions directly with its principal and adviser.
Midsize firms
A midsize family office compares the proposal in the workbook used by its investment team.
Large firms and institutions
A large family office gives its investment committee the model and open questions alongside the existing approval materials.

Owner-operators & property managers

Underwriting · Asset management

Set an asking rent for vacant space

The question
An owner needs market context for an empty suite in a shopping center.
What you send
The address, suite size, intended use and the proposed asking rent.
What to review
Market rent evidence with the available comparisons and gaps, for the owner’s leasing decision.
Small firms and independent practitioners
An independent owner discusses the evidence with the leasing broker.
Midsize firms
A midsize operator shares the rent comparison with its leasing and property management teams.
Large firms and institutions
A large operator reviews local rent evidence alongside the portfolio team’s assumptions before approving the asking rent.

Appraisers & valuation reviewers

Underwriting · Legal review

Gather evidence for a tax appeal

The question
An appraiser needs comparable sales to assess a property tax appeal.
What you send
The subject address, property details and the value under review.
What to review
A sales comparison with adjustments and missing information identified. The appraiser checks the evidence and owns the professional conclusion.
Small firms and independent practitioners
An independent appraiser reviews the comparisons for the subject assignment.
Midsize firms
A midsize appraisal firm gives the reviewing appraiser the evidence alongside the working file.
Large firms and institutions
A large valuation firm uses the same review structure across teams while leaving each assignment’s judgment with the responsible appraiser.

Real estate counsel

Underwriting · Sales and dispositions

Review an estate property before sale

The question
Counsel and an executor need property value context before listing an estate asset.
What you send
The property address, known asset details and any existing sale proposal.
What to review
Valuation evidence and unresolved property questions for counsel, the executor and their valuation adviser to review.
Small firms and independent practitioners
A sole practitioner shares the property questions with the executor and the valuation adviser.
Midsize firms
A midsize law firm includes the evidence in the estate team’s existing matter file.
Large firms and institutions
A large law firm gives the responsible office a consistent review package without replacing legal or valuation sign-off.

Corporate real estate teams

Signals · Sourcing

Find candidate distribution buildings

The question
A corporate real estate team needs buildings that fit an operating requirement.
What you send
The target territory, building criteria and the business’s location requirements.
What to review
A candidate property list with available building and owner details, plus missing information for the site team to verify.
Small firms and independent practitioners
A small business reviews candidate buildings with its broker before arranging visits.
Midsize firms
A midsize operator shares the shortlist with its operations and real estate leads.
Large firms and institutions
A large company pilots the search in a target region and routes reviewed candidates into its existing location approval process.

Client deals are published only with the client’s written permission.

See it run across a company like yours

On a demo we show the operations of a company like yours running on one AI system, then map your processes with the people who run them.

Request a demo