Not knowing anything about it, I would think it to be a bad idea.
Many years ago a local successful Ford dealer built a nice new "state-of-the-art" (at the time) building on the outskirts of town, for better display of automobiles for sale. His first mistake was to not have title to the land where he built the new facility. Instead, he had a "99-year lease." Any viable financial institution would be much more enthusiastic about loaning money for a building if they also had say over the land where it was constructed. One of the Ford dealer's friends loaned him money to build the cement parking lot. Back in the 1970's, this was a $75,000 loan. For security, the loaner had "second mortgage" on a bunch of used cars. The lender never recovered the money from the borrower. Another lender who had "first mortgage" on the used cars got what he could, but the "second mortgage" on the same used cars was not worth the paper it was printed on. It also turns out that cement is not really what you would call a "liquid asset," :roll: amazingly enough. The original land owner came out alright on owning the land, and eventually was paid for its value. Lesson learned from my vantage point was that before constructing a building, make sure you own the land where it will set.
Like cement, a building is not really a liquid asset. My guess is that any lease arrangement to construct a building would be cost prohibitive as compared to simply borrowing the money to put up the building.