Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

A Tenant's Perspective on SNDAs: Non-Disturbance Is Not Enough

By James O'Brien
September 01, 2019

The subordination, non-disturbance and attornment agreement (SNDA) is common to most commercial leasing and real estate financing transactions. The SNDA regulates two competing interests in the same property — tenant's right to possess its premises pursuant to its lease and mortgage lender's security interest in that same premises.

Despite the agreement's title, the most important provision of a subordination, non-disturbance and attornment agreement from a tenant's perspective is neither subordination, non-disturbance nor attornment. The most consequential provisions of the SNDA deal with the recognition of tenant's lease agreement. Though an agreement by mortgage lender not to disturb tenant's possession following a foreclosure is certainly beneficial to the tenant, non-disturbance alone is not enough. The savvy tenant will want the full terms and conditions of its lease to be recognized.

This article outlines the basic elements of an SNDA and will explain the differences between the concepts of "non-disturbance" and "recognition," while contending that lease recognition is more important to the tenant than not having its possession disturbed. In making that argument, we will explore the differences between covenants that "run with the land" and those that are personal to the person who makes them. This article will also discuss SNDA provisions that limit full recognition of a tenant's lease and will offer practical tips on negotiating those provisions.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers Image

In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

CoStar Wins Injunction for Breach-of-Contract Damages In CRE Database Access Lawsuit Image

Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.