In an exclusive interaction with Adlin Pertishya Jebaraj, Correspondent of Finance Outlook India, Apurva Agrawal, Founder, Universal Legal, describes how having legal and regulatory certainty allows investors to quantify the impact of this factor on their investment returns, as legal and litigation-related issues associated with unresolved land titles generate high discount rates and lower valuations.

With over 25 years of experience, Apurva has successfully managed significant real estate transactions as well as cross-border restructurings and large-scale litigation strategies. He also provides regular legal/regulatory/financial due diligence advice to clients, including Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFC), Asset Reconstruction Companies (ARC), Private Equity (PE) investors, family offices and hospitality companies.

How should investors model the financial impact of uncertain land titles or pending litigation when performing DCF or comparable analyses?

When investors deal with uncertainty around land titles, they try to factor it in both by tweaking the discount rate and adjusting expected cash flows. A litigation premium of 2–5% is added to WACC depending on dispute severity, typically 100–150 bps for RERA-level matters, 200–300 bps for High Court disputes, and 400–500 bps for Supreme Court cases.

Cash flows are modelled through weighted scenarios capturing delays, partial realisation, or total loss: a Base Case with 80% realisation (50–60% weight), a Favourable Case with full realisation but delays (25–30%), and an Adverse Case with 0–20% recovery (10–20%).

These cash flows are discounted at litigation-adjusted WACC. In comparables, valuation haircuts range from 5–10% for minor defects to 30–50% for Supreme Court litigation, with cap rates widening by 100–300 bps to account for reduced marketability and prolonged resolution timelines.

Also Read: Five Smart Credit Steps to Build Financial Strength Before 2026

How would you measure the impact of increased compliance (KYC, AML, environmental clearances) on the effective yield and margin of operating assets?

Compliance requirements KYC, AML, and environmental clearances affect financial performance by raising operating costs and delaying project timelines. Developers and REITs experience 50–150 bps EBITDA margin compression in many cases as compliance introduces higher due diligence costs, documentation overhead, and recurring monitoring expenses.

Environmental approvals amplify the impact, with delays causing 10–12% overhead escalation that reduces early-stage NOI.

Transaction-level compliance costs ranging from ₹5,000 to ₹1 lakh per buyer further reduce effective yield in asset-heavy portfolios. The combined effect creates slower cash-flow initiation, extended working-capital cycles, and lower return velocity, translating into an IRR reduction of 100–150 bps. Yield measurement, therefore, reflects both increased recurring operating expenses and delayed revenue recognition, driven by regulatory processing times.

How do legal reforms that shorten deal timelines translate into measurable changes in IRR and cash-on-cash returns?

Legal reforms that compress approval timelines directly raise returns by reducing interest carry, accelerating revenue, and limiting inflation exposure. When approvals fall from 18–36 months to 12–18 months, projects avoid significant financing costs and begin generating cash flows earlier, resulting in IRR improvements of 200–300 bps.

Faster dispute resolution: for example, RERA reducing timelines from 90 to 60 days releases tied-up capital sooner, increasing annual cash-on-cash returns by 3–5%.

Shorter timelines also reduce exposure to annual construction-cost inflation of 5–8%, preserving margin. A representative project example shows IRR rising from 16.5% to 18.8% and Year-1 CoC increasing from 8.5% to 11.2% when approval delays are reduced by six months. The uplift comes entirely from timeline compression, as earlier cash inflows materially enhance return calculations.

Also Read: Building Stronger Leadership Pipelines for Women

How do you price the liquidity premium related to legal/regulatory uncertainty in secondary market transactions?

Liquidity premiums reflect slower resale timelines, higher due diligence intensity, and elevated risk perception. Clean-title assets typically trade at par with premiums between –50 and 0 bps. Minor compliance or documentation issues create 50–100 bps liquidity premiums and 7–8% valuation discounts. State-level litigation drives premiums of 150–250 bps, with cap-rate spreads widening by 75 - 150 bps due to reduced buyer appetite.

Assets with Supreme Court-level disputes show the highest uncertainty, requiring 300–500 bps liquidity premiums and 250–300 bps cap-rate expansion, alongside sale cycles extending 18–24+ months. The premium, therefore, reflects the quantifiable cost of delay, restricted marketability, and elevated legal exposure embedded in secondary-market pricing.

If compliance becomes fully automated through regulatory technology, how would operating margins change structurally over a 10-year horizon?

Full automation of compliance functions including KYC, AML, escrow monitoring, and environmental documentation reduces recurring compliance costs by 50–70%, leading to structural operating-margin expansion.

Over a 10-year horizon, this cost compression increases EBITDA margins by 100–150 bps across developers, NBFC-linked platforms, and REITs. Automation shortens processing times, reduces error rates, and lowers dependence on manual review, which collectively decreases working-capital lock-ups and interest carry.

Faster documentation cycles also improve cash-flow timing, supporting stronger IRR performance over the asset lifecycle. The cumulative effect is a sustained reduction in regulatory friction, allowing operating models to become leaner and more predictable, with compliance operating as a low-cost, real-time infrastructure layer.