Another pattern I see on small land and infill deals is risk showing up not in the zoning itself, but in how the contract is structured relative to the entitlement path. On paper, the deal looks reasonable. In practice, a few things tend to cause problems later:

• * Earnest money going hard before the true approval path is clear

• * Entitlement periods that don’t align with realistic review timelines

• * Assumptions that discretionary steps will be “routine” or fast

• * Pricing anchored to a future unit count that hasn’t been de-risked yet

None of these automatically make a deal bad. But they do shift where the risk sits—and who’s actually carrying it. What often gets overlooked is that entitlement uncertainty isn’t just a technical issue; it’s a timing and capital allocation issue. Once money goes hard or expectations are set, flexibility drops quickly.

In my experience, aligning contract structure with entitlement reality early tends to preserve optionality and makes later decisions much easier, whether the outcome is moving forward, renegotiating, or walking away.

Curious how others here are thinking about contract timing and risk allocation on smaller land or infill deals.