New financing methods to provide & maintain more social purpose real-estate.
In Canada, we are facing a multitude of crises including homelessness, alarming decrease of nature and biodiversity, and disappearance of affordable housing everywhere. Non-profits, charities and community organizations (together “the organizations”) are well positioned to address these emergencies due to their close collaboration with those directly affected by the problems. However, these organizations are experiencing a crisis of their own.
Many of them own assets that have historically been a source of equity, and enabled strategic investment of funds towards solutions that produce positive societal and climate outcomes. Over time these real assets depreciated and required significant upkeep capital. This, in turn, depleted the organizations’ annual operating cash flow, leaving them often no choice but to put the assets up for sale.
Another challenge is that many asset-rich organizations tend to be non-profits that are subject to the same demographic forces that are triggering the silver tsunami in the business sector. Their demographic base is declining and they are lacking the capacity to regenerate or identify innovative solutions in an increasingly complex world.
As a result, organizations that own real assets often reach a point where they run out of financial liquidity and human capacity. The sum of maintenance and repair for the asset as it ages, and the ongoing orchestration costs become higher than the organization’s annual revenue. Recapitalizing these assets are difficult when done on a property-by-property basis.
More often than not, the consequence of such a situation is that an organization decides to sell its community asset(s). This has a detrimental domino effect since most affordable housing, permanent office spaces for charities, services for the homeless – disappear once they are put on the market for sale. They are acquired by traditional for profit developers, which carry different objectives than the community organizations. In addition, organizations give up the only source of future equity that they had access to. As such, addressing this reality requires systemic solutions that preserve existing community assets, increases collective financial resilience and strengthens non-profit actors.
It is with these systemic issues in mind that we are researching the development of a Community Real Estate Investment Trust (“REIT”) to mobilize collective community action. Once operational, these solutions will increase pathways towards future capital investments into affordable housing, community spaces and permanent housing for the homeless.
We are seeking to engage non-profits and charities in Guelph and Wellington County, and on Vancouver Island. If you are interested in this research, please connect through the short online form below or email [email protected].
Literature Review
This literature review examines existing models — both globally and domestically — that combine community ownership, impact-oriented governance, and pooled real estate investment. Drawing on public-sector entities, nonprofit and trust-based structures, and mission-aligned real estate funds, it explores how different approaches balance scale, access to capital, community control, and long-term asset preservation. While some models demonstrate strong community governance but limited scalability, others successfully mobilize investment capital yet fall short on community ownership and mission lock.
| Model | Legal Structure | Current State | Ownership & Governance | Capital Source & Return | Community Control / Access | Core Difference vs. 10C Concept |
| Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation (ILSC) | Federal statutory authority (public agency) | National body supporting Indigenous land and asset ownership across Australia. | Assets held collectively for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; governed by a federally appointed board with Indigenous leadership. | Funded through a dedicated federal land account; no private investors; returns are reinvested for community outcomes. | High — land is protected for long-term community benefit and managed in partnership with Indigenous groups. | Not an investment vehicle. No investor capital, no units, and no REIT structure. Focus is on public-purpose land stewardship, not mixed financial + social return like the Community REIT |
| Community Investment Trust (Portland, USA) | Nonprofit trust (SEC-qualified public offering) | Managed by Mercy Corps Global Innovations; local residents purchase shares ($10–$100/month). | Residents’ micro-investments; philanthropic seed capital for property acquisition. | Very high — residents are literal co-owners; strong local education & inclusion component. | Not a REIT, but true community ownership model — smaller scale, localized, less transferable to multi-property portfolios. | |
| Charities Property Fund (UK) | Exempt Unit Trust for registered charities | Managed by Savills IM; investors must be UK-registered charities; board appointed by fund manager. | Charities pool capital to invest in diversified commercial real estate; returns distributed annually (~5%). | Limited to institutional charity investors, not the general public. | Pooled fund for charities—no community participation; focus on investment diversification, not asset preservation. | |
| Civitas Social Housing REIT (UK) | Public for-profit REIT listed on LSE | Corporate board with ESG oversight; leases assets to social landlords and charities. | Institutional investors; dividend-focused REIT structure (~5–6% yield). | None — community nonprofits are tenants, not owners. | Mission-aligned but profit-first; demonstrates risk of mission drift without community governance. | |
| Community Land Trusts (CLTs, global) | Nonprofit corporation / cooperative trust | Governed by community members (often 1/3 residents, 1/3 public, 1/3 stakeholders). | Public grants, community shares, local philanthropy. | Very high — residents or community directly vote and participate. | Mission-lock and perpetual affordability, but no pooled investment or liquidity (non-scalable, non-income-yielding). | |
| Ethical Property Company (UK / Europe) | Social enterprise / B Corp property company | Private company limited by shares; cooperative-style voting. | Retail social investors + impact funds. | Moderate — open public share offerings, but not fully community-run. | Social enterprise, not nonprofit. Demonstrates balancing investor return with impact purpose. |
Synthesis of Findings
Across global examples, a few patterns emerge that are highly relevant to the Canadian context:
- Scale vs. Community Control – Models like HPET and Civitas demonstrate the ability to attract institutional capital and scale portfolios, but they often sacrifice direct community governance. In contrast, Community Land Trusts (CLTs) and the Community Investment Trust (CIT) prioritize deep community control, but remain small, localized, and less replicable. This tension highlights the core design challenge: balancing growth and liquidity with meaningful community voice.
- The Role of Philanthropy as Catalytic Capital – Nearly every successful model relied on philanthropy or government subsidy at the outset. Philanthropic foundations seeded HPET, grants supported CLTs, and Mercy Corps provided the backbone for the CIT. These “first loss” or patient capital layers enabled later institutional or retail investment. For Canada, this suggests that philanthropic or government risk capital is essential to crowd in mainstream investors.
- Governance as the Safeguard Against Mission Drift – The Civitas Social Housing REIT demonstrates the risks of prioritizing yield — tenants and nonprofits became mere lessees, not decision-makers. By contrast, CLTs and CIT embed governance directly in community hands, ensuring mission lock. The key lesson: without carefully designed governance, even “impact” funds risk sliding toward conventional real estate logics.
- Liquidity and Exit Mechanism – A recurring gap is that models with the strongest community engagement (CLTs, CIT) struggle to provide liquidity or scale. Conversely, REITs and exempt funds excel at offering investor exit routes but weaken mission control. A blended model could innovate by combining pooled liquidity with a governance structure that embeds community voice.
Implications for a Canadian Community REIT
For Canada’s nonprofit sector — where many charities and nonprofits own aging, undercapitalized real estate — the international models offer several design principles:
- Capital Structure: Blend philanthropic seed capital with community participation (through small retail investments) and institutional tranches. This layering could mirror HPET’s philanthropic start but adapt CIT’s community engagement
- Governance: Establish a hybrid governance model (e.g., thirds: nonprofits/charities, community members, investors) similar to CLTs, but applied at pooled scale.
- Mission Lock: Build in mechanisms such as golden shares, veto rights, or perpetual affordability covenants to prevent drift toward profit-maximization.
- Community Access: Unlike pure housing REITs, ensure spaces remain hubs — accessible for nonprofit programming, housing, and mixed-use community infrastructure.
- Scalability: Design for multi-property portfolios that enable diversification and efficiency, while still preserving community-led decision-making at the local level.
Conclusion
A Community REIT could be uniquely positioned to preserve nonprofit-owned assets, safeguard affordability, and repurpose them into vibrant community hubs — ensuring these properties remain in the commons rather than being lost to private markets.
Executive Summary: Community Investment Trust (CIT)
Overview
The Community Investment Trust (CIT) is a nonprofit-owned investment vehicle that enables local residents to collectively invest in and co-own neighbourhood commercial real estate through small monthly contributions. Developed by Mercy Corps, CIT is designed to address displacement, wealth inequality, and exclusion from property ownership.
Core Mechanisms:
- Residents purchase shares through an SEC-qualified public offering.
- Micro-investments ($10–$100/month) are pooled to acquire community-serving property.
- Investors receive modest financial returns and participate in governance and education programs.
- Philanthropic capital supports initial acquisition and risk reduction.
Intended Outcomes / Value Proposition:
CIT democratizes access to real estate ownership, allowing communities to build wealth, retain control of local assets, and prevent displacement in gentrifying neighbourhoods.
Relevance to the Canadian Community REIT:
CIT is the closest international example of community ownership paired with an investment structure. It informs how the Community REIT can integrate community investors, shared returns, and inclusive participation while maintaining professional asset management.
Limitations:
- Single-asset, hyper-local model.
- Limited scalability and portfolio diversification.
- No institutional capital participation.
Key Strengths / Transferable Lessons:
- Demonstrates community members as investors, not just tenants.
- Strong emphasis on financial inclusion and education.
- Clear alignment between ownership and community benefit.
Executive Summary: Ethical Property Company — UK / Europe
Overview
The Ethical Property Company is a social enterprise that acquires, manages, and leases commercial properties to charities, nonprofits, and social enterprises. It operates across the UK and Europe, balancing investor returns with explicit social and environmental objectives.
Core Mechanisms:
- Properties are owned by a private social enterprise structure.
- Capital is raised from retail social investors and impact funds.
- Properties are leased at affordable rates to mission-driven tenants.
- Returns are capped and aligned with social outcomes.
Intended Outcomes / Value Proposition:
The model demonstrates that mission-driven real estate portfolios can attract investment capital while prioritizing affordability, tenant stability, and social impact.
Relevance to the Canadian Community REIT:
Ethical Property is highly relevant for portfolio-scale operations. It provides a working example of how a diversified, professionally managed, social-purpose real estate portfolio can function sustainably with investor capital.
Limitations:
- Private company, not community-governed.
- No participatory governance by tenants or communities.
- Not a nonprofit or trust-based ownership structure.
Key Strengths / Transferable Lessons:
- Multi-asset, multi-city portfolio management.
- Proven ability to balance impact and return.
- Professionalized real estate operations aligned with mission.
Executive Summary: Community Land Trusts (CLTs) — Global
Overview
Community Land Trusts (CLTs) are nonprofit or cooperative entities that hold land in trust for community benefit, separating land ownership from building ownership to ensure perpetual affordability and prevent displacement.
Core Mechanisms:
- Land is owned collectively by a nonprofit trust.
- Governance typically includes residents, community stakeholders, and public representatives.
- Funding comes from grants, public programs, and local philanthropy.
- Affordability and mission are legally locked in perpetuity.
Intended Outcomes / Value Proposition:
CLTs ensure long-term affordability, housing stability, and community control over land use, particularly in markets facing rapid price escalation.
Relevance to the Canadian Community REIT:
CLTs provide critical lessons in mission-lock, governance design, and affordability preservation. These principles directly inform the Community REIT’s safeguards against mission drift and asset extraction.
Limitations:
- Reliance on grants rather than investment capital.
- Limited scalability and liquidity.
- Not designed to support large, diversified portfolios.
Key Strengths / Transferable Lessons:
- Strong democratic governance.
- Permanent affordability protections.
- Proven anti-displacement mechanism.
Executive Summary: The Indigenous Land & Sea Corporation (ILSC)
Overview
The Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation (ILSC) is a federally mandated statutory authority established to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in acquiring, managing, and stewarding land and sea assets for long-term cultural, social, and economic benefit. While not an investment vehicle, the ILSC represents a nationally coordinated model of community-controlled land stewardship insulated from market extraction.
Core Mechanisms:
- Assets are held collectively for Indigenous communities.
- Governance is mission-locked through federal legislation and Indigenous leadership.
- Capital is provided through a dedicated government land account rather than private investors.
- Financial returns are reinvested into land management, community development, and economic participation.
Intended Outcomes / Value Proposition:
The ILSC exists to protect land from speculative markets, enable long-term community benefit, and support self-determination. It prioritizes stewardship, intergenerational value, and community governance over financial yield.
Relevance to the Canadian Community REIT:
While the ILSC is not a REIT, it is highly relevant for its governance and stewardship principles. It demonstrates how land can be collectively owned, professionally managed, and protected from extraction at scale. These principles directly inform the Community REIT’s mission-lock, governance safeguards, and long-term affordability objectives.
Limitations:
- Government-funded rather than investor-funded.
- Not a market-based or replicable investment structure.
- No liquidity or return mechanism for participating organizations.
Key Strengths / Transferable Lessons:
- Strong community control embedded in governance.
- Protection of land assets from market displacement.
- Long-term stewardship orientation rather than short-term return maximization.
