High-Level Leasing Considerations for Marijuana-Related Businesses
Time 3 Minute Read
Categories: Real Estate

As marijuana sales become increasingly legal in many states across the US, a growing number of commercial property owners will be faced with the decision of whether to lease their space to a marijuana-related business. There are many factors that potential landlords and tenants must keep in mind, not the least of which is federal law.

Under federal law, the use, possession, sale or processing of marijuana is illegal. This is because marijuana is a Schedule 1 substance under the Controlled Substances Act (21 USC § 801 et seq.). More importantly, another federal law, unflatteringly known as the “Crack House Statute” (21 USC § 856), makes it a felony to knowingly open, lease, rent, use or maintain any place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing or using any “controlled substance.” Thus, even if the potential landlord’s state or locality allows for marijuana-related business activities, this inherent conflict with federal law presents several potential issues.

In addition to statutory issues, there are numerous other factors to take into account. For example, if the property is subject to a mortgage, the loan agreement will almost certainly contain provisions requiring that the borrower, the property and its uses will comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations. Therefore, upon execution of the lease agreement with a marijuana-related entity, the landlord will likely be in default under the loan agreement.

If the property is not subject to a mortgage, there are several other considerations landlords and tenants should be aware of. For example, the landlord’s bank may not accept deposits of income generated from a marijuana-related business. Zoning regulations may also present problems given the sensitivity that still exists around the use and sale of marijuana. A landlord and tenant must also consider the availability of insurance, because some insurance companies may deny claims if they arise out of an illegal use. Finally, commercial projects are often subject to restrictive covenants contained in other leases or restrictive covenant agreements that prohibit uses within the applicable project that are in violation of laws in general or involve the sale of cannabis products.

The above issues are only some of the issues landlords and tenants must consider before proceeding with entering into a lease agreement related to marijuana use or sale. Because of the conflicts that will inevitably exist between local, state and federal laws, it is important for landlords and tenants to engage counsel familiar with all related laws before proceeding with entering into any lease agreements.

  • Partner

    Mark’s practice focuses on commercial real estate transactions across a variety of industries, including in the retail, office and healthcare sectors. His experience includes (i) the representation of healthcare systems in ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 8 Minute Read

Effective July 1, 2025, the Contracts Honoring Opportunity, Investment, Confidentiality, and Economic Growth (“CHOICE”) Act became law in Florida.

Time 4 Minute Read

On January 16, 2025, three days before President Trump’s inauguration, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) jointly issued the Antitrust Guidelines for Business Activities Affecting Workers (the “2025 Guidelines”). 

Time 4 Minute Read

On April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) approved a final rule banning most non-compete agreements between employers and their workers (the “Final Rule”). However, in the afternoon of Tuesday, August 20, 2024, Judge Ada E. Brown of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, followed her July preliminary injunction against the rule with a substantive ruling granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs challenging the Final Rule and against the FTC (“Memorandum Opinion and Order”), explaining that “the Court concludes the text and the structure of the FTC Act reveal the FTC lacks substantive rulemaking authority with respect to unfair methods of competition, under Section 6(g). See generally 15 U.S.C. § 46(g); 15 U.S.C. § 57a. Thus, when considering the text, Section 6(g) specifically, the Court concludes the Commission has exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating the Non-Compete [Final] Rule.”  Memorandum Opinion and Order at 22. 

Time 2 Minute Read

Pending legislation in New York (Senate Bill S3100A/Assembly Bill A1278B) will result in the sharp curtailment of post-employment non-competes if passed into law.  This development is concerning to many employers operating in New York or employing individuals currently living there, but for the moment, it is far from clear whether the current (or any) form of the bill may be passed into law.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page