Land to Asset Ratio in Australia Explained

When you buy a property, what part of the purchase increases in value?

It is the land of course.

It is the question that almost every property investor I speak with understands without hesitation.

So, if the land is a critical component for successful investing, why not maximise your total budget and just buy vacant land or larger allotments of land?

After all, if you get the basics right, at the end of the day a house will depreciate over time and lose value, while land will continue to grow in value.

So many questions…. here are my thoughts:

Why do we need the property?

If the land is so important, why do we even need physical property?

As a property investor, there are important benefits that buying a block of land, with a residence on it will do for you.

Firstly, and most importantly, by renting the property out you will receive a return or an income from your investment.

Think about it … tenants won’t pay you much to live on vacant land, will they?

Lenders like to see you receiving income to support your mortgage repayments, and this will enable you to achieve a superior level of finance and you can leverage more of your own funds.

As you are receiving an income you will also have certain tax advantages that will assist you to hold the asset and close the cashflow gap.

You may not realise it, but you can’t get a tax deduction for your interest payments on vacant land

These are very important tools for investors and benefits that you would not receive by simply holding a block of land.

So, is more land better?

If land is the key, then surely more land must be the answer.

Most investors assume this to be the case and I know we occasionally hear that a house with land should always be put ahead of an apartment or townhouse.

But not all land is created equal.

To take it to the extreme…

Would you prefer to buy 5,000 sqm in the middle of nowhere or a 500 sqm block in an inner to middle ring suburb of a capital city?

A block of land in an inner to middle ring-suburb would win out, but why?

The land near a capital city would clearly be in much higher demand and have a level of scarcity.

There are more employment hubs, education, public transport, and lifestyle precincts and benefits.

Sure, the 5,000 sqm may be larger, but there is no or low demand, due to it being miles from anything.

Further…unlike the 500 sqm block of land in a built-up area, there would also be an abundance of land close by, supply is far too high.

Getting the Balance Right

If you are wondering the best way to get the right balance between house and land, here is my suggestion.

You need to understand the concept of a Land-to-Asset Ratio.

The simplest way to start is by understanding the value of the land that the property is sitting on.

This can be reasonably easy to calculate for a house as it will be included in your rates and notices from the local council, even though these estimates are usually on the low side.

The value of the land component for units, apartments, and townhouses may be more difficult to calculate and you may have to dig a bit deeper into the rating certificates to get the value.

Finally, all you need to do is understand what you are wanting to pay for the property and work through the equation.

Let us take a closer look.

Case Studies

In the example below, we have a budget of $600,000 and are assessing two properties.

Property #1 is in an inner to middle ring suburb of a capital city, there are large employment hubs, quality schools, public transport and it has high walkability.