Inter Alia Mortgages in BC: One Charge, Two or More Properties

The Short Answer

An inter alia mortgage is a single mortgage registered against two or more properties at the same time. The lender takes security on all of them for one loan, rather than making separate loans against each.

It exists because sometimes one property alone isn’t enough security to support the borrowing — and sometimes a second property is very difficult to lend against on its own. Combining them can make a deal possible that neither property could carry by itself.

The cost arrives later, and it is almost always the same cost: the day you want to sell one of the properties, both are tied to one charge, and getting one of them released is a negotiation rather than a right. That negotiation is far easier to win before you sign than after.

What the Charge Actually Is

Ordinarily each property carries its own mortgage. Sell that property, pay out that mortgage, done. An inter alia arrangement breaks that one-to-one relationship. One loan, one set of terms, one balance — secured by two or more titles.

The Latin means “among other things,” and in this context it means the charge covers this property among others. In practice it registers as a mortgage against each title, all referring back to the same underlying loan.

That has one immediate consequence worth sitting with: the properties are no longer financially independent of each other. A problem on one is a problem on both, and a sale of one requires the lender’s cooperation on both.

When It’s the Right Answer

Three situations account for most of them.

One property can’t stand on its own. Rural or remote location, poor condition, an unusual property type, a marketability problem an appraiser will flag. The property may have real value and still be one a lender won’t advance against alone. Adding a second, stronger property changes the risk enough to make the loan possible.

The borrowing need exceeds what one property supports. Consolidating debt, funding a renovation, or bridging a transition can require more than the equity in a single home allows, while the household’s combined equity across two properties is comfortably sufficient.

The two properties are part of the same plan. A household moving from one home to another, where both will be owned at once for a period, is running a single financial project across two titles. Sometimes the financing should reflect that.

A real file, still running

A Lower Mainland household inherited a home from a relative in another part of the province — the place they intend to retire to. It needed substantial work, and between its condition and its location, no lender would advance meaningfully against it on its own.

They also had debt worth consolidating and needed renovation funds to make the inherited home liveable.

The structure: an inter alia charge taking a second position on their existing home and a first position on the inherited property. Neither security alone would have supported the borrowing. Together they did. The debts were consolidated and the renovation was funded.

The part that matters more than the structure. The plan depends on their existing home selling. Once it does, the balance gets paid down substantially, and shortly after that the intention is to retire the borrowing entirely in favour of conventional financing on the retirement property.

Their home has now been on the market four months without selling.

Nothing has gone wrong. The consolidation worked, the renovation is funded, payments are current. But the file is a useful reminder of the honest shape of these deals: an inter alia arrangement is usually a bridge between two states, and the exit almost always depends on a transaction you don’t fully control. A market that cools, a listing that sits, a buyer that walks — none of those are failures of the structure, and all of them extend the period you’re paying for it.

That’s why the exit plan has to be written before the charge is registered, not improvised afterward.

The Cost That Surfaces Later

The interest rate is not where inter alia gets expensive. The expense shows up at the moment you want to sell one property and keep the other.

With ordinary separate mortgages, that sale is simple: the sale proceeds pay out that property’s mortgage and the transaction closes. With an inter alia charge, the mortgage isn’t attached to that property — it’s attached to both. To sell one, you need the lender to release its security on the property being sold while continuing to hold the other.

The lender is under no automatic obligation to agree. Their position was underwritten on both properties, and letting one go leaves them with less security than they agreed to take. What they will typically want is a paydown large enough that the remaining property comfortably supports the remaining balance.

Practically, this means the amount you walk away with from that sale may be considerably less than you expected, because a share of the proceeds is going to satisfy the lender rather than into your pocket.

Release Provisions: Negotiate Before, Not After

Everything above is manageable if the terms for a partial discharge are agreed at the outset. Ask, before signing:

• Under what conditions will you release one property from the charge?
• What paydown will be required to do it, and how is that calculated?
• What fee applies to a partial discharge?
• How long does the release take to process, given that it has to happen inside a closing timeline?

Getting those answers in writing before the charge registers costs nothing. Asking the same questions eighteen months later, with a firm sale and a closing date, means negotiating from a position where you have already committed and the lender knows it.

One honest distinction. Where an inter alia sits with a private lender or a mortgage investment corporation, this is usually a manageable conversation. Private lenders go into these arrangements with their eyes open — they know the structure is transitional and that paydowns and adjustments are part of the deal. What they will look at is how much equity remains behind them once a property is gone, and if that math works, they are generally straightforward to deal with. The discipline of a private mortgage having a defined exit applies with extra force here.

Where the arrangement is institutional, the release terms are whatever the commitment says they are, and the time to influence that is before you sign.

Who Should Refuse One

Two situations where the structure is a poor fit regardless of how well it solves today’s problem.

When the two properties have different time horizons. If one is a keep-for-decades asset and the other is likely to be sold within a few years, tying them to one charge means the short-horizon property’s sale becomes a negotiation with a lender who has no particular reason to hurry. Two separate mortgages cost a little more to arrange and leave both properties free to move independently. That flexibility is usually worth more than the arrangement saves.

When future agreement between the owners can’t be relied on. A separating or divorcing couple is the clearest case. An inter alia charge requires the parties to cooperate on decisions about both properties, potentially for years, at exactly the point when cooperation is hardest to obtain. Anything that forces two people to agree later is the wrong structure when the relationship between them is uncertain now.

The same caution applies to any arrangement between parties whose interests may diverge — family members co-owning, business partners, a parent and adult child with different plans for their own property.

Where This Sits Among the Alternatives

An inter alia charge is one option among roughly fifteen structures in regular use in British Columbia, and it is rarely the first one worth testing. Before reaching for it, the questions are whether a straightforward refinance covers the need, whether an alternative lender would advance against the difficult property on its own, and whether separate financing on each property genuinely can’t be arranged.

The full set, including the structures that almost never work, is in when the standard mortgage doesn’t fit in BC. Files that need an inter alia charge are usually files the standard process reads badly for other reasons too, which is why the companion piece is choosing a mortgage broker for self-employed borrowers in BC — it covers how a file gets read, where this page covers how it gets secured.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is an inter alia mortgage?

A single mortgage registered against two or more properties at the same time. The lender holds security on all of them for one loan, rather than making a separate loan against each property. It’s used when one property alone can’t support the borrowing, or when one of the properties is difficult to lend against on its own.

Why would a lender want security on two properties?

Because it reduces their risk enough to make a loan possible that otherwise wouldn’t be. If one property is in poor condition, in a remote location, or otherwise hard to sell, a lender may decline it outright on its own — but accept it alongside a stronger property. The combined security is what makes the deal work.

Can I sell one property with an inter alia mortgage on it?

Yes, but not automatically. The lender has to agree to release its security on the property being sold while continuing to hold the other. They’ll generally require a paydown large enough that the remaining property comfortably supports the remaining balance, plus a discharge fee. This is why the release terms should be agreed in writing before the charge is ever registered.

What happens if the property I planned to sell doesn’t sell?

You keep paying for the structure longer than you intended. Most inter alia arrangements are transitional and the exit depends on a sale, so a slow market extends the arrangement. It isn’t a failure of the structure, but it is the most common reason these deals run longer than planned, which is why the exit needs a written plan rather than an assumption.

Are inter alia mortgages more expensive?

Not necessarily in rate — the real cost is flexibility. Two properties tied to one charge can’t be dealt with independently, and the day you want to separate them you’re negotiating rather than simply closing. Where the arrangement sits with a private lender, that negotiation is usually manageable because they expect it; the amount of equity remaining behind them is what decides it.

Who should not use an inter alia mortgage?

Anyone whose two properties have different time horizons, because the one you intend to sell sooner becomes hostage to a lender’s cooperation. And anyone whose co-owner relationship may not survive the term — a separating couple above all, since the structure forces agreement on both properties at exactly the point agreement is hardest.

If One Property Can’t Carry the Deal Alone

The useful conversation starts with the constraint rather than the structure: which property is the problem, what it’s worth in the condition it’s in, and what has to happen for the arrangement to end. An inter alia charge is sometimes the only thing that works, and when it is, the terms of getting back out are worth more attention than the rate.

Call or text 604-833-4663 (HOME) or book a free, zero-pressure strategy session. If you already have an inter alia mortgage and don’t know what its release terms are, that’s worth finding out before you need them.

Every mortgage we arrange goes into HomeBrew, so a transitional structure gets revisited on schedule rather than quietly becoming permanent.

About the author: Michael Lloyd has been in mortgage lending since 1988 and a licensed mortgage broker since 1999 (BCFSA licence #087740). He founded and led DLC Canadian Mortgage Experts to over $1.8 billion in annual mortgage volume before returning to full-time client work. Michael leads The HomeHappy Team @ Canadian Mortgage Experts, co-brokering under Indi Mortgage, serving homeowners across British Columbia with strategy-first mortgage planning and lifetime mortgage management. In 2017, he testified before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance on Canada’s mortgage rules — two of his three recommendations became federal policy in 2024.