Retailers continue to pursue growth opportunities across the U.S., but bringing new space to market has become increasingly difficult. Just 10.2 million square feet of new retail space was delivered nationwide in 2025, an all-time low and 63% below the 2015–2019 average, as elevated costs and other development challenges continued to pressure project feasibility.
With less margin for costly surprises, determining early whether a potential site truly works has become increasingly important. That analysis must consider both the market and the physical site constraints as a whole to understand the full picture. Neither tells the full story in isolation, yet the two aren’t always evaluated together early enough in the process.
For many of our clients, a challenging site can still make sense in the right market, just as a seemingly ideal property may not justify the investment required to develop it. Understanding that relationship early helps put individual constraints into context and reveals which ones are simply data points to account for, and which have the potential to become deal breakers.
The right land in the right market
Before evaluating an individual property, retailers and developers first need to understand whether the broader market can support a new location. That starts with the retailer’s “why”: the customers it wants to reach, the sales it expects to generate, and the role a new location will play within its larger portfolio. Every retailer brings its own criteria to that decision.
Market analysis evaluates factors such as demographics and population growth, traffic patterns, consumer demand, and existing retail activity through the lens of the particular retailer, its customers, and its growth strategy. The same data points can therefore carry different implications. A nearby business might be a competitor for one retailer and a complementary use for another, creating an opportunity to capture trips already being made in the area. High traffic counts may provide valuable exposure, while traffic patterns and ease of access determine how effectively that exposure can translate into visits. Proximity to an existing location adds another consideration when a new store could pull sales from one the retailer already operates.
Taken together with a retailer’s own internal data, market analysis helps establish where it wants to be, what a location could realistically generate, and how much investment that opportunity can support. That context provides a basis for the next stage of evaluation, understanding the physical realities of the property and determining which constraints are worth overcoming.
From market opportunity to site reality
When a property checks all the market opportunity boxes, it can be tempting to move directly into building design. After all, many retailers and developers already have a strong sense of what they want to build, from target square footage and parking ratios to drive-thru configurations and other site requirements.
The challenge is that those expectations don’t always align with what the land can support. A two-acre property may appear to accommodate a 12,000-square-foot building on paper, but topography, wetlands, stream buffers, drainage, access requirements, utilities, or other constraints can quickly change the equation. If a building program is developed before those conditions are fully considered, an assumed density can become the expectation—and unwinding that expectation later can mean redesign, additional engineering and permitting, higher costs, and lost time.
Purchasing a property without fully understanding the constraints is a high-risk endeavor, but early constraints mapping can help establish realistic expectations. Using available GIS resources, existing survey information, utility data, and early coordination with municipalities, development teams can begin identifying the conditions that will shape a site before significant time and money are committed. Depending on the property, that might include contours and topography, wetlands and streams, floodplains, easements and setbacks, roadway access, and the location and availability of water, sewer, natural gas, and electric infrastructure.
It’s often more cost effective to design the building to the site, instead of vice versa. Doing so before the building or footprint is designed can influence everything from site layout and orientation to development costs and, ultimately, whether the project moves forward at all. Instead of starting with a desired density and engineering the property around it, the team can work with the land and back into a site plan that accounts for grading and drainage, access and circulation, utility connections, and other development requirements from the outset.
Early site screening with the engineering team can reveal constraints that fundamentally change the viability of a site. In some cases, the added cost, time, or reduction in developable area may be enough to kill the deal, but identifying that early is a valuable outcome. It allows a retailer or developer to move on or renegotiate before investing significantly more time and money into a property that will underperform.
In other cases, what initially looks like a deal breaker may simply become another factor to account for. A retaining wall, utility extension, floodplain issue, or access improvement may add substantial cost or time, but that doesn’t necessarily make the site unworkable. If the market opportunity is strong enough, the land is priced appropriately, or the development can generate enough value to absorb the additional investment, overcoming that constraint may make sense.
Deal breaker or data point?
Having worked with clients across a wide range of development types, we’ve seen how a constraint that stops one project may be entirely manageable for another. A utility extension or traffic signal could undermine the economics of a smaller retail development, while a higher-density or larger-scale project may be able to absorb the same investment. There is no universal threshold for what makes a constraint worth overcoming.
Site viability is less about eliminating constraints than understanding them in context. Market analysis establishes what the opportunity could support, while early site evaluation helps quantify what it may take to capture that opportunity. Early constraints mapping using GIS assets can offer a valuable tool to set realistic expectations before moving into development. Bringing those perspectives together gives retailers and developers a clearer basis for weighing additional cost and time against expected sales, rent, land value, and other factors that ultimately determine whether the project pencils.
The earlier that picture comes into focus, the more options a developer has. A site plan can be adjusted to work around a constraint. Additional infrastructure costs can be incorporated into the development model. New information about yield or site improvements can provide leverage to revisit the purchase price with the landowner. And when the numbers simply don’t work, the developer can walk away before committing significantly more time and capital.
That last outcome can be just as valuable as finding a path forward. Successful site selection isn’t about making every property work; it’s about getting the right information early enough to make the right decision. Sometimes that means finding a way around the constraint. Sometimes it means finding another site.
