Experts: Why would a Landlord sign a Lien Waiver subordinating its rights for a SBA Loan for Tenant?
Im sure this is commonplace but this is my first time being asked to sign a Lien Waiver for a Tenant that is getting an SBA loan? Why would I do that? It gives up my rights to collect if the Tenant defaults or puts my rights behind the SBA loan? 

Doesnt make sense why I would sign this outside of just helping out my Tenant to get a loan?

Part of the document:

Lessor certifies to the Lender as follows:

1. Lessor subordinates as to Lender any and all liens, including distraint and levy against the property of Borrower in the Premises under the Lease, in which property, inclusive of equipment and trade fixtures, Lender has or will have a security interest, given to Lender by Borrower as collateral for the loan.

2. Lessor agrees that in the event of any default by Tenant under the Lease, it will not terminate the Lease without giving Lender a forty-five (45) day prior written notice by certified mail of such action at the above address. Lender shall have the right to cure such default within forty-five (45) days of receipt of Lessor’s written notice of Tenant default under the Lease.

3. Lessor shall grant access to the Premises to Lender with at least 48 hours notice for purposes of removal by Lender of any property subject to Lender’s security interest with the understanding that Lender shall have the obligation to repair any damage to Premises during the removal. Lender shall remove all such property within fifteen (15) days after termination of the Lease.

4. Lessor hereby consents to Lessee’s collateral assignment of all its right, title and interest in and to the Lease to the Lender, its successors and assigns.

5. Lessor certifies that the undersigned has full authority to execute this agreement.
[{"id": "ic84hkd", "text": "Took out a loan from the SBA, most likely EIDL laon", "replies": [{"id": "ic8aztn", "text": "Correct, I guess my question would be...I'm the Landlord and I have nothing to gain from the situation so why would I subordinate my rights to collection from the tenant if they default (which is what the SBA loan requests I do)?", "replies": [{"id": "ic8bcd4", "text": "Cause you may wind up with no tenant at all", "replies": [], "depth": 3}, {"id": "ic94rrl", "text": "You are looking short term. You do gain something with the SBA possibly, but not likely choosing to pay the back rent if they choose.\n\nEither way their won't be much left to go after when the tenant goes into bankruptcy if you don't subordinate your lien position. The SBA just wants to ensure they have 1st lien position on the equipment in the property that is being used for the loan. Lots of times that equipment isn't worth much used anyways.\n\nLong term you are getting a tenant that is trying to grow their business and you can benefit as well by having them in better financial position with the SBA loan and possibly expand into additional space in your building.", "replies": [], "depth": 3}], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "ic88kky", "text": "&gt;Why would I do that? It gives up my rights to collect if the Tenant defaults or puts my rights behind the SBA loan? \n\nNot your right to collect rent.  Your right to seize tenant property that is being used as collateral for the SBA loan in the event of default on your rent. You're also giving the lender the right to enter the property to seize their collateral if needed.\n\nYou have to decide the value you place on that tenant and your relationship with them (cause that is going south if you decline) versus the value you place on the ability to lock the doors and take their shit if they don't pay you.", "replies": [{"id": "ic94ugc", "text": "Yep. The SBA Loan collateral is likely worthless as salvage value anyway. You\u2019re better off with a stronger credit profile of the tenant having access to capital, especially in todays (pre) recessionary environment.", "replies": [], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "ic8fdba", "text": "You\u2019re subordinating your right to take the personal property, not the right to collect rent.  Do you know how many hoops you have to jump\nThrough to actually take their personal property?  Depends on the state but usually more of a headache than it\u2019s worth.\n\n\nEDIT:  But yeah Tenant should have put this in the lease to begin with.  Unless it\u2019s in the lease. You don\u2019t have anything saying you have to sign it.", "replies": [{"id": "ic8j5qs", "text": "I like this perspective", "replies": [], "depth": 2}, {"id": "ic8mlzb", "text": "Yeah I think in Cali (at least for residential), last I checked you legally have to store left behind stuff for some months in a safe place, it might have been 3 months, before you can do a thing with it.  So you'd have to move it off site to store it in order to rerent.  Rarely is the stuff in there going to be worth that hassle.  I have also seen landlords totally ignore that and give away everything for free right away too.", "replies": [], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "ic8t5pj", "text": "Some reasons/ideas:\n\n1) Landlord is looking to fill the vacancies , therefore is making some concessions to the tenant\n\n2) Strong tenants' market\n\n3) Tenant might have inventory/equipment that was leased from a 3rd party, therefore their lender wants protection in case of a default of the lease\n\n4)The LL will still collect the rent up until a default. If there is a default of the lease the LL might still be able to sue and claim damages if the tenant has assets left after the other creditors are being paid\n\n5) If the landlord wants to sell the property in 6-12 months, increasing the NOI with 100k will generate an additional 2M (if we assume a 5% cap rate).", "replies": [], "depth": 1}, {"id": "ic98sej", "text": "Posted on this exact topic. https://fb.watch/dDq_qIVqJa/", "replies": [], "depth": 1}, {"id": "ic993oi", "text": "I went through this with a tenant's lender several years ago. I pushed back on several sections regarding cure provisions beyond those in the lease, and future ability to assign the lease without my permission. The bank sent revised docs to me the same day they funded my six figures in back rent and interest. Tbh, I never sent them the signed docs after all of that, and they never asked.\n\nI think most of the loan officers are just checking boxes and actually executing these documents doesn't hold up closing. I recently closed a refi where most of my tenants didn't return the SNDAs requested by the bank. I never heard anything about it.\n\nWould I have signed the docs as-is if push came to shove? Yes.\n\nEdit- I went back and looked, now I remember the whole thing ticked me off because they shoved it into an estoppel. If you want an estoppel to verify previous agreements, limit it to that. Don't send me a subordination that grants you new rights and call it a lease estoppel. Perhaps lawyers would argue that falls within the definition of an estoppel, but to me it was shady.", "replies": [{"id": "ic9mv0a", "text": "Def shady.  Estoppel is supposed to be a snapshot of current facts, nothing new", "replies": [], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "icaauz7", "text": "SNDAs are standard.  Read them, understand them, then sign and get on with it.\n\nReal question is why are you renting to a tenant that needs an SBA loan vs regular financing?  It basically means that their personal guarantee is not valuable and the guarantee of the US gov't must be substituted.\n\nMy point: you are taking way more risk as a landlord by renting to a weak credit than signing the lenders SNDA.\n\nDon't major in the minor.", "replies": [], "depth": 1}, {"id": "iccs2fs", "text": "Thanks everyone for your feedback - very helpful!", "replies": [], "depth": 1}]