As cannabis businesses progress through the pre-approval licensing stage, the next major challenge is securing a compliant location. During the 2023 legislative session, prior to the legalization of cannabis zoning, local control remained the final unresolved issue. Local governments were not granted the authority to ban cannabis outright, but they could defer regulatory decisions to county authorities. Municipalities, however, advocated for the authority to oversee registration within their jurisdictions.
As a result, municipalities are now permitted to establish reasonable regulations regarding the time, place, and manner of cannabis operations, provided these do not amount to a prohibition. This includes setting buffer zones, limiting the number of cannabis retailers based on population, adopting specific zoning ordinances, and determining how registration processes will be conducted.
On-the-ground implementation has proven more complicated, as some jurisdictions take liberties beyond the intent of state law. Key issues include:
- Expanded Buffer Zones
Under Chapter 342, local governments are authorized to establish a 1,000-foot buffer between cannabis businesses and schools, and a 500-foot buffer from daycares, residential treatment facilities, and attractions within public parks that are regularly used by minors, such as playgrounds or athletic fields. However, several cities and counties have begun to extend these buffer zones beyond what is permitted under state law. This includes increasing minimum distance requirements or introducing additional restricted categories—such as places of worship, pawn shops, or adult-oriented businesses—that are not specified in the statute.
Additionally, some jurisdictions have adopted broad interpretations of terms like “public park,” classifying even small green spaces, vacant lots, or areas with minimal infrastructure (such as a flagpole) as parks. These actions have created significant ambiguity and are further limiting the availability of compliant sites.
Compounding the issue is the inconsistency in how buffer distances are measured. Approaches vary widely, with some jurisdictions measuring from property line to property line, others from the building entrance to the edge of the buffer zone, and still others using straight-line “as-the-crow-flies” methods. This lack of uniformity adds further confusion and complexity for businesses attempting to secure viable locations.
- Misguided Zoning Based on Misunderstanding the Industry
Cannabis businesses are being confined to narrowly defined zones due to a lack of understanding or for more debilitating punitive reasons. For instance, cultivation is sometimes pushed into industrial zones rather than agricultural ones. Similarly, manufacturing operations, which can be as simple as assembling pre-rolls, are being restricted to heavy industrial zones, as if they were chemical plants, rather than being treated like distilleries or breweries.
- Excessive City Requirements and Delays
Some cities are imposing additional, and often unnecessary, barriers to entry. For example, certain jurisdictions now require a Zoning Certificate from the Office of Cannabis Management as part of the local registration process. This poses a challenge in cities that have imposed limits on the number of licenses allowed, requiring applicants to fully build out their facilities before being eligible for registration—an impractical and costly expectation.
Other municipalities have introduced requirements that exceed state mandates, such as enhanced background checks, stringent odor control protocols, or even a minimum of 20 contiguous acres for cultivation operations. Additionally, approaches to local registration vary widely. While some cities use a first-come, first-served model, others rely on local lotteries or merit-based point systems. These inconsistent practices contribute to delays, unpredictability, and further complications for applicants navigating the licensing process.
- Zoning Compliance Does Not Guarantee Site Viability
Even when a property meets zoning requirements on paper, significant practical barriers often remain. These include landlord unwillingness to lease to cannabis businesses, restrictions tied to federally backed mortgages or loans, and a shortage of suitable properties that can fully support cannabis operations. Many available sites lack adequate electrical capacity, proper layout, or the infrastructure necessary for compliance and functionality. Additionally, limited familiarity among city officials with the local real estate landscape further complicates the process. Combined, these factors create an environment in which opening a cannabis business is extraordinarily difficult, despite meeting technical zoning criteria.
Final Thoughts
These local “liberties” not only strain relationships between businesses and municipalities, but also, they can function as de facto bans. The result? Many cannabis entrepreneurs are stuck in limbo, unable to secure viable locations despite obtaining a preapproval license.
If you’re navigating this process, we strongly encourage you to start conversations early with local governments, and prioritize working with municipalities that are informed, supportive, and willing to collaborate.
