Commercial real estate due diligence becomes most useful when experienced professionals connect a building’s visible condition to future performance, capital needs, and practical decisions.

In this Q&A, Eric Sunderland discusses the judgment behind that work and what has stood out to him about technical quality, open discussion, and leadership accessibility at EBI.

Eric Sunderland on Technical Due Diligence and EBI at a Glance 

Eric’s answers connect technical analysis with the professional environment that supports it. The discussion centers on five themes: 

• Professional judgment. Actual condition, maintenance, installation, repairs, and performance give standard assumptions context. 

• Decision-useful review. Assessors connect physical observations to capital timing, operations, and underwriting. 

• Deferred maintenance. Repair costs can rise while replacement moves closer. 

• Ownership strategy. Past maintenance and investment decisions shape what the next owner inherits. 

• EBI experience. Eric describes accessible leadership, open discussion, and technical depth in review. 

Q&A with Eric Sunderland 

What separates a due diligence review that helps a client make a decision from one that simply checks a box? 

Eric Sunderland: What separates the two, in my opinion, is whether the assessment applies real-world experience and professional judgment or simply follows a formula.

A check-the-box, formulaic approach can become: I see this component, it is this age, therefore this is the recommendation.

 

A decision-focused review asks a more important question: What does the actual condition of this component mean for replacement, performance, and planning?

Two identical building systems of the same age can have very different remaining useful lives based on installation quality, maintenance history, operating conditions, previous repairs, and how they have performed over time. An experienced assessor will recognize those differences and apply technical judgment rather than relying solely on standard useful-life assumptions.

 

For example, an older system that has been well maintained and is performing properly may reasonably remain in service beyond its expected useful life. Conversely, a relatively young system that has been poorly maintained or improperly installed may require significant investment much sooner than a standard schedule would suggest. 

Actual condition gives the schedule context 

Eric’s answer shows how assessors test standard assumptions against property evidence before recommending repair, continued service, or replacement. 

What can a thorough acquisition due diligence review uncover that a surface-level review, checklist, or underwriting assumption might miss? 

Eric Sunderland: The difference often comes down to two things: the experience of the assessor and the lens through which the property is being evaluated. A debt-focused or surface-level assessment considers whether the property is currently serviceable and whether there are significant conditions that could impair the collateral. An investor-focused assessment goes further. It considers how the building and its systems are likely to perform over the anticipated hold period, where costs may emerge, and whether the timing and magnitude of those costs are adequately reflected in the acquisition assumptions. 

 

An experienced assessor is not simply identifying deficiencies; they are analyzing the age and condition of a roof, mechanical system, facade, and other major components that may appear acceptable on the surface. Maintenance history, remaining useful life, interaction with other building systems, and history of repairs can tell a very different story. 

 

Individually, these observations may not raise a red flag. Taken together, they can point to significant near-term capital requirements, operational disruption, or costs that have not been captured in the underwriting. 

Findings gain meaning when they are viewed together

Related observations can change the capital and underwriting picture when assessors view them together.

From your experience, what is the number one thing investors tend to underestimate before closing on a property, and why can it become so costly after the deal closes? 

Eric Sunderland: In my experience, the number one thing investors tend to underestimate is the true cost of deferred maintenance and aging building systems. As the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. When routine maintenance is deferred, it shortens the useful life of major systems and brings significant replacement costs forward much sooner than anticipated. 

 

At the same time, trying to maintain a compromised system, whether beyond its useful life or due to deferred maintenance, can become increasingly expensive as the frequency and cost of repairs escalate. A roof is a good example. An investor may see several years of remaining useful life on paper, but the maintenance and repairs required to actually achieve those additional years can represent a significant percentage of the eventual replacement cost. At some point, continuing to repair the system can become less economical than replacing it. 

That is why understanding not only the condition of major systems, but also their remaining useful life, maintenance history, and near-term capital requirements before closing is so important. Otherwise, what appeared to be a manageable operating expense can quickly become an unplanned capital expenditure after acquisition. 

Findings gain meaning when they are viewed together

Eric’s roof example connects operating condition with repair economics and capital timing. 

Before a buyer closes on a property, what is the one question they should ask but often don’t? 

Eric Sunderland: One question I think buyers should ask more often is: How has the current owner’s investment strategy influenced the way this property has been maintained? The physical condition of a property at acquisition is often a result of the current owner’s strategy over their ownership. 

 

An owner with a long-term hold strategy may have been more willing to invest proactively in preventive maintenance, replace systems before failure, and make capital improvements that provide benefits over a longer horizon. Conversely, an owner anticipating a sale may have had less incentive to make significant investments in systems that are still functioning today but approaching the end of their useful life. Neither strategy necessarily means the property has been poorly managed; however, understanding that difference is important. 

 

A building can present very well during a surface-level inspection while still carrying a significant amount of deferred capital needs beneath the surface. Repairs may have kept systems operational, but that does not necessarily mean those systems have meaningful useful life remaining. Ultimately, the buyer needs to understand not only “What condition is the property in today?” but “What ownership and maintenance strategy am I inheriting?” 

The building reflects accumulated ownership decisions 

Maintenance history helps explain which needs the next owner may inherit, even when the property presents well on inspection day. 

Looking back on your first few months at EBI, what has stood out to you most about the team, the company, or the opportunity ahead? 

Eric Sunderland: What has stood out to me most in my first few months at EBI is the accessibility of leadership and the emphasis placed on technical quality. I’ve been particularly impressed by how approachable and accessible the upper levels of the organization have been. I have interacted directly with senior management. 

The openness to discussion and exchange of ideas makes it easy to raise questions, share perspectives, and contribute. I’ve also been impressed by the technical knowledge and experience of the review staff in acquisitions. 

There is real depth behind the review process, and the discussions are not simply about completing a report or checking a box. There is an emphasis on understanding the issues, challenging conclusions when appropriate, and making sure the final product provides meaningful information to the client. 

Technical quality depends on discussion 

Eric’s comments give candidates a concrete view of the discussion behind the work while reflecting his own experience. 

What Eric’s Answers Show About Careers in Technical Due Diligence 

The work Eric describes asks professionals to interpret actual conditions, connect related findings, and explain what the evidence means for capital planning, operations, and transaction decisions. 

What the work asks of experienced professionals 

• Examine actual conditions. Test age and standard assumptions against performance, maintenance, installation, and repairs. 

• Connect findings to decisions. Explain how several conditions may combine to affect capital timing, operations, or underwriting. 

• Communicate and refine. Make the reasoning clear, invite questions, and adjust the analysis when the evidence supports a different view. 

This work may appeal to experienced professionals in Property Condition Assessments, engineering, architecture, construction, facilities, building operations, capital planning, project management, technical review, and related disciplines. Role requirements vary, but Eric’s perspective shows why real-world experience and disciplined reasoning matter in commercial real estate due diligence careers. 

Why the working environment matters 

Eric’s observations offer one concrete view of how technically strong colleagues, open discussion, and constructive review can support the work. His experience does not define every role or team.