Lease Consent and Estoppel - The Landlord Negotiation That Can Derail Your Exit

You’ve negotiated for months, agreed on price, signed the purchase agreement, and scheduled closing for thirty days out. Then your landlord’s attorney sends a letter: consent to assignment will require a rent increase, lease extension, personal guarantee from the buyer, and a $50,000 consent fee. Your carefully structured deal suddenly faces a party you’d barely considered, one holding leverage they’ve waited years to exercise.

Executive Summary

Landlord consent requirements represent one of the most underestimated obstacles in business sale transactions, particularly for companies where location matters to operations. In our experience representing lower middle market businesses over the past decade, real estate and lease issues contribute to a meaningful percentage of deal delays or complications, we estimate this affects roughly one in five to one in six transactions where leased premises are central to business operations. Most commercial leases contain provisions requiring landlord approval before ownership changes, and these consent clauses can create leverage opportunities that some landlords exploit during transaction processes.

The consent negotiation dynamic often differs from typical landlord-tenant interactions. During normal lease operations, landlords generally benefit from cooperative tenants and may hesitate to damage relationships. During sale transactions, some landlords recognize they’re negotiating with parties who need consent to complete valuable transactions, and that this leverage opportunity may not recur for years. This shift doesn’t occur universally; many landlords remain cooperative throughout transaction processes, but business owners should prepare for the possibility of more aggressive negotiation postures.

Understanding this dynamic before entering sale processes enables business owners to implement strategies that may limit landlord leverage and help prevent consent negotiations from derailing transactions. Early engagement, lease modification before sale processes begin, and strategic use of estoppel certificates can transform potentially adversarial consent negotiations into manageable transaction steps, though each approach carries its own risks and tradeoffs that warrant careful consideration.

This article examines the legal mechanics of landlord consent requirements, identifies the leverage dynamics that may arise during transaction consent processes, and provides frameworks for managing real estate consent efficiently while protecting deal economics and timelines.

Introduction

Real estate considerations rarely drive business valuations for companies in the $2 million to $20 million revenue range unless those considerations create deal obstacles. This revenue segment faces particular challenges because these businesses typically operate from leased premises without the real estate ownership common among larger companies, yet lack the negotiating leverage that comes with multi-location portfolios. A restaurant’s lease, a manufacturer’s facility access, or a retailer’s location can become the transaction element that delays closing, reduces purchase price, or terminates deals entirely when landlord consent processes go poorly.

The challenge stems from how commercial lease provisions interact with transaction timelines and dynamics. Standard assignment clauses give landlords consent rights over ownership changes. These rights, often negotiated years earlier when landlords held more leverage, become constraints during sale processes. Some landlords who seemed cooperative during normal operations may adopt different negotiation postures when they recognize the leverage that consent requirements can provide, though this varies significantly based on the landlord’s sophistication, relationship history, and strategic priorities.

We observe this pattern regularly in exit transactions across our practice. Business owners focus appropriately on buyer negotiations, due diligence preparation, and financing arrangements. Real estate considerations receive attention primarily regarding whether leases transfer. The consent negotiation dynamics, what landlords might demand and how those demands could affect transactions, often receive insufficient consideration until landlords make requests that threaten deal completion.

The landlord consent challenge compounds because transaction participants sometimes misunderstand landlord motivations and constraints. Buyers may assume consent provisions merely require notification. Sellers may assume landlord relationships ensure cooperation. Attorneys may focus on legal requirements without recognizing negotiation dynamics. Meanwhile, sophisticated landlords and their counsel often understand what leverage consent requirements can provide and how to extract value from that leverage, though outcomes vary considerably by market, landlord type, and specific circumstances.

Addressing landlord consent effectively requires understanding the legal framework, recognizing potential landlord incentives, and implementing strategies that may reduce landlord leverage while maintaining relationships necessary for transaction completion.

Understanding Lease Consent Requirements

Commercial lease consent provisions vary significantly in their terms and implications for business sale transactions. Understanding what your specific lease requires, and what it permits, provides the foundation for effective consent management. Lease law varies by jurisdiction, with states like California, New York, and Texas applying different standards to reasonableness requirements and landlord obligations. California, for example, has statutory provisions that may imply reasonableness requirements even when leases are silent, while Texas courts generally enforce consent provisions as written. Business owners should consult local counsel to understand jurisdiction-specific considerations that could materially affect consent strategies.

Standard Assignment and Subletting Provisions

Most commercial leases distinguish between assignments, which transfer all lease rights to another party, and subleases, which create subsidiary tenancy relationships while maintaining original tenant obligations. Business sale transactions typically trigger assignment provisions because buyers want direct landlord relationships rather than sublease arrangements dependent on seller cooperation.

Assignment clauses generally fall into three categories based on landlord consent requirements. Absolute prohibition clauses prevent any assignment without landlord agreement, giving landlords maximum leverage but appearing less frequently in modern commercial leases. Consent-required clauses mandate landlord approval but often include reasonableness standards limiting landlord discretion. Notification-only clauses require informing landlords of assignments but don’t condition transfers on landlord approval, these provisions favor tenants but appear infrequently in standard commercial leases.

The reasonableness standard in consent-required clauses creates interpretive challenges. Courts generally require landlords to evaluate proposed assignees based on financial capability, intended use, and similar objective factors. But proving unreasonable consent withholding requires litigation that transaction timelines rarely accommodate. Practically, reasonableness standards provide leverage in negotiations but may not prevent landlords from seeking concessions as consent conditions. The standard’s application also varies by state, some jurisdictions imply reasonableness requirements even when leases are silent, while others enforce consent provisions as written.

Change of Control Triggers

Lease provisions addressing business ownership changes add complexity beyond simple assignment clauses. Many commercial leases define “assignment” to include changes in entity control, meaning stock sales or membership interest transfers may trigger consent requirements even though the tenant entity remains unchanged.

These change-of-control provisions vary in their triggering thresholds. Some require consent for any ownership change exceeding specified percentages, often 25% or 50%, though triggering thresholds vary by industry and property type, with retail leases often containing stricter provisions than office space leases. Others focus on changes in controlling ownership without specifying percentages. Still others address only complete ownership changes or transfers to unrelated parties.

The practical implication: buyers planning stock purchases rather than asset acquisitions may still face landlord consent requirements. Structuring transactions to avoid technical assignment triggers rarely succeeds when leases contain broad change-of-control provisions. Even where lease language appears ambiguous, landlords typically assert consent rights over any transaction they discover, and discovery usually occurs through due diligence inquiries or post-closing notification requirements.

What Landlords Can Legitimately Evaluate

Understanding legitimate landlord concerns helps distinguish reasonable consent conditions from potentially opportunistic leverage extraction. Landlords have legitimate interests in assignee financial strength, whether new tenants can fulfill lease obligations throughout remaining terms. They have legitimate interests in intended use, whether proposed operations comply with permitted use provisions and won’t create problems for other tenants or the property. They have legitimate interests in operational capability, whether assignees can maintain premises appropriately.

These legitimate concerns provide frameworks for presenting assignees favorably. Strong buyer financial statements, clear operational plans consistent with current use, and references from other properties address legitimate landlord concerns. But satisfying legitimate concerns may not eliminate consent demands, it primarily removes justifications for consent denial while landlords pursue concession negotiations.

The Landlord Leverage Dynamic

Landlord behavior during consent processes can differ from behavior during ordinary lease administration. Understanding why this difference may occur, and what it means for transaction negotiations, enables more effective consent management strategies. Landlord responses vary significantly based on factors including institutional versus individual ownership, local market conditions, existing tenant relationships, and property management sophistication.

Why Consent Can Create Unusual Leverage

Normal landlord-tenant relationships involve ongoing interactions where both parties benefit from cooperation. Landlords want tenants who pay rent promptly, maintain premises appropriately, and don’t create problems. Tenants want landlords who address maintenance issues, respect tenant rights, and negotiate renewals reasonably. This mutual dependence tends to moderate both parties’ behavior.

Transaction consent processes can alter this balance. Sellers are leaving, their future landlord relationship has limited value to protect. Buyers often need the specific location, alternative premises may not serve transaction purposes. Transaction timelines create urgency, delayed consent means delayed closing, extended diligence periods, and increased deal failure risk. Financing arrangements add pressure, lenders often require lease consent before funding, and consent delays can threaten financing commitments.

Some landlords recognize this dynamic may shift leverage in their favor. The seller who negotiated firmly during ordinary operations now needs landlord cooperation to complete a valuable transaction. The buyer who might walk away from a direct lease negotiation has already committed to purchasing the business, walking away means losing the entire acquisition, not just the location.

Many landlords don’t exploit this leverage aggressively. Long-term oriented landlords recognize that reputation matters for future tenant recruitment. Institutional landlords with standardized processes may not engage in opportunistic negotiations. Landlords with positive tenant relationships may prioritize maintaining goodwill. Business owners should prepare for various scenarios rather than assuming worst-case landlord behavior.

Common Landlord Concession Requests

When landlords do seek concessions during consent processes, they typically focus on several categories. Rent increases may address gaps between contract rent and current market rates, landlords who accepted below-market renewals to retain good tenants sometimes view consent processes as opportunities to correct this gap. Term extensions can lock assignees into longer commitments, reducing future vacancy risk while potentially capturing rent increases through extension-period escalations.

Security deposit increases provide additional protection against unknown assignee credit risk. Even financially strong buyers may face deposit requests because landlords lack the relationship history that supported original deposit levels. Personal guarantees from buyer principals provide additional credit support, particularly when buyers are entities with limited operating history or assets.

Consent fees compensate landlords for consent process administrative costs, sometimes at levels exceeding actual costs. Lease modification fees address any changes to lease terms requested during consent negotiations. Early termination right eliminations remove options that tenants might exercise if operations underperform expectations.

These requests may appear individually or in combination. In our experience, complete concession packages are more common with sophisticated institutional landlords than with smaller property owners, though individual outcomes vary significantly based on market conditions and specific circumstances.

Impact on Transaction Economics

Landlord consent demands can meaningfully affect buyer economics and, consequently, purchase price negotiations. Consider a representative scenario: a rent increase of $2,000 monthly over a seven-year remaining term represents $168,000 in additional occupancy costs ($2,000 × 84 months). Using a discount rate appropriate for established lower middle market businesses, often ranging from 8% to 15% depending on business characteristics, the present value of this increase approximates $95,000 to $125,000. Depending on industry valuation multiples, this present value impact could translate to $75,000-$150,000 in supportable purchase price reduction. Personal guarantee requirements that survive lease terms impose ongoing risk that sophisticated buyers factor into acquisition economics.

This economic impact can create transaction tension. Sellers may argue that landlord demands shouldn’t reduce purchase prices, buyers should absorb consent costs as operating expenses. Buyers may argue that seller lease negotiations created the consent provisions now imposing costs, sellers should bear those costs. These allocation disputes can delay or derail transactions even when landlords grant consent.

Some landlords recognize that demanding too much prevents transactions that would provide acceptable assignees, potentially leaving them with existing tenants who may deteriorate or vacate. Other landlords may overestimate their leverage, making demands that terminate transactions without understanding why buyers walked away.

Managing Landlord Consent Strategically

Effective landlord consent management begins before sale processes start and continues through closing. Strategic approaches at each phase can reduce landlord leverage and limit consent-process impacts on transactions, though outcomes depend on specific circumstances and landlord responsiveness.

Pre-Transaction Lease Improvements

For businesses with below-market rents or unfavorable lease terms, the most effective consent management often occurs before transaction processes begin, when normal landlord-tenant dynamics still apply. Business owners contemplating exits within two to four years should review lease provisions for consent requirements and, where provisions are unfavorable, explore whether modifications are achievable during ordinary lease administration.

Renewal negotiations provide natural opportunities for consent-provision improvements. Landlords seeking tenant commitments to extended terms may accept assignment-provision modifications in exchange. Converting consent-required provisions to reasonableness standards, narrowing change-of-control triggers, or adding express provisions limiting consent conditions can all reduce future transaction friction.

Pre-transaction lease modifications face practical challenges and carry meaningful costs. Landlords may decline to modify provisions that benefit them. Requesting assignment modifications may signal exit intentions prematurely, a risk we discuss in detail below. Modification negotiations require time and attention that competes with business operations.

Full cost accounting for lease modifications:

• Legal fees: In our experience, legal costs for lease modifications typically range from $2,500 to $10,000 depending on complexity and negotiation duration
• Business owner time: Typically 10-20 hours of management attention, representing $2,000-$4,000 in opportunity cost
• Potential rent adjustments: Landlords may seek rent increases as part of any modification negotiation
• Relationship risk: Failed modification attempts could affect future consent negotiations
• Total realistic cost: $5,000-$15,000+ when including all direct and indirect costs

In our experience with modification attempts over the years, success rates vary significantly. Modification requests succeed more frequently during genuine renewal negotiations than as standalone requests, and more frequently with smaller landlords who value relationships than with institutional owners following standardized policies. We’ve also seen cases where modification requests prompted landlords to become less cooperative, having been alerted to potential transaction activity.

Early Engagement During Sale Processes With Important Caveats

Once sale processes begin, early landlord engagement may reduce consent-process impacts on transaction timelines and negotiations, but this strategy carries meaningful risks that warrant careful consideration.

Potential benefits of early engagement:

• Starts landlord internal processes before transaction urgency peaks
• May identify likely consent conditions before those conditions affect buyer negotiations
• Enables consent requirements to inform transaction structuring
• Helps parties allocate consent costs appropriately in purchase agreements

Potential risks of early engagement:

• Unusual inquiries may signal transaction activity to sophisticated landlords
• Early positive signals may create false confidence if landlords change positions later
• Landlords given more notice may have more time to plan aggressive negotiations
• Relationship dynamics may shift once landlords perceive transaction leverage

The decision whether to engage landlords early depends on specific circumstances. Factors favoring early engagement include strong existing landlord relationships, institutional landlords with standardized consent processes, and transactions where landlord cooperation is virtually certain. Factors favoring delayed engagement include landlords with reputations for aggressive negotiations, below-market rents that landlords may seek to adjust, and situations where maintaining confidentiality is paramount.

In approximately 30-40% of transactions we’ve observed, early landlord engagement produced benefits that outweighed risks. In the remaining cases, the timing advantages were marginal or early engagement actually complicated negotiations by alerting landlords to leverage opportunities. Business owners should weigh these tradeoffs carefully rather than assuming early engagement is universally beneficial.

Estoppel Certificate Strategies, Understanding Limitations

Estoppel certificates, landlord statements confirming lease terms, rent amounts, and absence of defaults, serve important transaction functions but have significant limitations as consent-process tools. Understanding what estoppels can and cannot accomplish prevents unrealistic expectations.

What estoppel certificates accomplish:

• Confirm current lease terms and rent amounts for buyer and lender due diligence
• Identify any landlord claims of default that might affect transaction
• Establish baseline facts that prevent landlord from later asserting different terms
• Signal to landlords that transaction processes are underway

What estoppel certificates generally cannot accomplish:

• Constrain landlord consent rights or limit future consent conditions
• Lock in consent terms or prevent landlords from seeking concessions
• Create legal obligations regarding prospective consent negotiations

Some advisors suggest including consent-related confirmations in estoppel requests, for example, asking landlords to confirm that assignment provisions are the sole consent requirements. In our experience, this strategy works better with less sophisticated landlords; experienced landlords and their attorneys typically limit estoppel content to factual confirmations about current lease status and refuse to include statements that might constrain their consent discretion.

Risk consideration: Unusual estoppel requests may alert landlords to transaction activity, potentially triggering the premature disclosure concerns discussed above. Standard estoppel requests are less likely to raise concerns, but estoppels with creative consent-related language may prompt landlord inquiries about transaction timing and structure.

Alternative Location Strategies

Reducing landlord leverage sometimes requires demonstrating that transactions don’t absolutely require landlord cooperation. Several approaches can provide this leverage reduction, though each involves tradeoffs:

Backup location identification: Even when alternatives are clearly inferior, identifying potential alternative premises demonstrates that transactions could proceed without landlord consent. Landlords demanding excessive concessions may moderate demands when they recognize that excessive demands could produce vacancies rather than consent fees. This strategy requires genuine alternative identification, sophisticated landlords often recognize bluffs.

Lease termination and direct buyer negotiation: In some cases, negotiating lease termination and having buyers enter new leases directly produces better outcomes than assignment negotiations, particularly when existing lease terms are significantly below market and landlords would benefit from direct negotiations with new tenants. This approach works best when buyers have strong credit profiles and landlords are motivated to capture market rents.

Transaction restructuring: Where lease language permits, structuring transactions to minimize consent triggers may reduce landlord involvement. Broad change-of-control provisions limit this approach’s effectiveness, and perceived attempts to circumvent consent requirements can damage landlord relationships.

Business relocation provisions: Including purchase agreement provisions that allow transaction completion with business relocation shifts risk in ways that may moderate landlord demands. These provisions require careful drafting to ensure both parties understand the economic implications of potential relocation.

Limiting Concession Exposure

When landlords seek concessions, several approaches can limit transaction impact:

Cap provisions in purchase agreements specify maximum consent costs sellers will bear, with excess costs either terminating transactions or shifting to buyers. These provisions clarify consent-cost allocation before negotiations reveal actual landlord demands.

Legal challenges to unreasonable consent denial, while rarely practical within transaction timelines, provide negotiating leverage when landlord demands clearly violate reasonableness standards. Counsel letters noting potential exposure for consent interference may moderate landlord positions without requiring actual litigation. Litigation threats can also damage relationships and harden landlord positions.

Relationship-based approaches, emphasizing mutual benefits of completed transactions, proposing compromises that address landlord concerns partially, and maintaining professional interactions throughout consent processes, often produce better outcomes than adversarial negotiations. Many consent negotiations succeed through professional engagement rather than leverage battles.

Industry and Geographic Variations

Lease consent dynamics vary significantly by industry sector and geographic market. Understanding these variations helps business owners calibrate expectations and strategies appropriately.

Industry-Specific Considerations

Retail businesses typically face the most significant landlord consent challenges because location directly affects customer traffic and business value. Shopping center landlords may have tenant mix considerations beyond individual assignee creditworthiness. Co-tenancy provisions may affect what businesses can operate in specific locations. Landlords may seek percentage rent provisions or other retail-specific terms during consent negotiations.

Manufacturing facilities present different dynamics. Specialized facility requirements may limit landlord alternatives, reducing landlord leverage. Environmental considerations, equipment installation impacts, and utility requirements may create legitimate landlord concerns requiring substantial due diligence before consent.

Professional services firms typically operate from more fungible office space, providing greater alternative location options that reduce landlord leverage. Client accessibility considerations and employee commute impacts may still make specific locations important to transaction value.

Technology companies increasingly operate with flexible location arrangements, but data center or specialized facility requirements can create location dependencies similar to manufacturing businesses.

Geographic Market Differences

Urban markets with low vacancy rates typically see more aggressive landlord consent demands than suburban or rural markets with higher vacancy. Markets experiencing rapid rent growth create greater incentives for landlords to use consent processes to capture market rate increases.

Jurisdictional differences in commercial lease law also matter significantly. California’s commercial lease statutes provide different tenant protections than Texas or New York law. Some jurisdictions imply reasonableness requirements into consent provisions while others enforce lease language as written. Local counsel familiar with jurisdiction-specific considerations should review consent strategies before implementation.

Protecting Transaction Timelines

Landlord consent processes threaten transaction timelines in ways that create cascading problems. Financing commitments expire. Buyer patience erodes. Seller businesses continue consuming owner attention. Managing consent timelines requires specific strategies and purchase agreement provisions.

Building Realistic Consent Timelines

Purchase agreements should reflect realistic landlord consent timelines based on specific landlord characteristics, and should build in buffer time for complications. Based on our transaction experience, typical consent timelines range as follows, though individual circumstances can extend these significantly:

Key factors that extend timelines include:

• Incomplete initial consent package submission
• Landlord requests for lease modifications beyond simple consent
• Committee or board approval requirements
• Holiday periods or key personnel unavailability
• Buyer creditworthiness concerns requiring additional documentation
• Negotiations over consent conditions

Purchase Agreement Consent Provisions

Purchase agreements should address consent processes comprehensively:

Consent condition provisions specify what consent terms parties will accept and what demands exceed acceptable limits. These provisions should address rent increases, term extensions, security deposits, personal guarantees, and consent fees with specific thresholds.

Timeline provisions specify when consent must be obtained and what happens if deadlines pass. Build in realistic buffers, transactions rarely fail because consent timelines were too generous.

Cooperation provisions require sellers to support consent processes actively rather than merely not obstructing them, including specific obligations regarding document provision and landlord communication.

Termination rights tied to consent failure protect both parties when landlords refuse cooperation. Sellers don’t remain bound to transactions that can’t close. Buyers don’t lose deposits over circumstances beyond their control. These provisions require careful drafting to prevent parties from manufacturing consent failures to escape transactions they no longer want.

Cost allocation provisions address how consent-related costs, consent fees, rent increases, legal expenses, divide between parties. Clear allocation prevents disputes that delay closings even after landlords grant consent.

When Consent Negotiations Fail

Despite best efforts, some consent negotiations fail or require material deal modifications. In our experience representing businesses in this revenue segment, a meaningful percentage of transactions with significant lease components, perhaps 5-10%, though this varies considerably by market conditions, experience consent-related failures or substantial deal restructuring. Understanding failure scenarios helps business owners plan accordingly.

Failure rates appear higher in:

• Hot real estate markets with low vacancy
• Situations involving significantly below-market rent
• Transactions with compressed timelines
• Deals where buyer creditworthiness differs substantially from seller

When consent negotiations appear likely to fail, business owners should consider:

Timeline extensions: Extending transaction deadlines may allow continued negotiation or identification of alternatives

Deal restructuring: Modifying purchase price or terms to accommodate landlord demands may preserve transactions when the alternative is deal failure

Backup location execution: Proceeding with alternative location strategies if identified during planning, though this typically reduces transaction value

Transaction termination: Recognizing when landlord demands make transactions uneconomic and terminating appropriately under purchase agreement provisions

Actionable Takeaways

Review lease provisions now. Before beginning exit planning, understand what consent your lease requires and what provisions govern that consent. Identify change-of-control triggers that might affect transaction structures. Assess reasonableness standards that might limit landlord discretion. Engage local counsel to understand jurisdiction-specific considerations, these vary meaningfully between states.

Evaluate lease improvement opportunities carefully. Renewal discussions may provide opportunities to improve consent provisions, but weigh the $5,000-$15,000+ total cost (including legal fees, management time, and relationship risks) against potential benefits. Recognize that modification requests may signal exit intentions and that success rates vary significantly by landlord type.

Make informed decisions about early landlord engagement. Early notification may identify likely consent conditions before those conditions affect purchase negotiations, but carries risks of premature disclosure and false confidence from non-binding early signals. Base timing decisions on specific landlord characteristics and relationship history rather than assuming early engagement is always beneficial.

Structure purchase agreements carefully. Include realistic consent timelines based on specific landlord characteristics (add 50-100% buffer to “typical” timelines), clear cost allocations with specific thresholds, specified acceptable consent conditions, and appropriate termination rights. Don’t leave consent matters to general best-efforts provisions.

Prepare for various landlord responses. Some landlords will cooperate readily; others will seek significant concessions. Budget for potential consent costs in transaction economics, including not just consent fees but rent increases, security deposit requirements, and legal expenses. Identify alternatives that reduce landlord leverage while understanding those alternatives’ limitations.

Understand estoppel certificate limitations. Estoppels confirm current lease facts for due diligence purposes but generally cannot constrain landlord consent rights or lock in consent conditions. Use estoppels for their intended purpose rather than expecting strategic benefits they typically don’t provide.

Consider industry and geographic factors. Calibrate expectations based on your sector’s typical lease dynamics and your local market conditions. Retail and location-dependent businesses face different challenges than professional services firms with more flexible location requirements. Consult local counsel on jurisdiction-specific considerations.

Conclusion

Landlord consent negotiations represent a transaction element where preparation can significantly affect outcomes, though preparation cannot guarantee smooth consent processes. Business owners who enter sale processes with unfavorable consent provisions, limited landlord relationships, and unrealistic timeline expectations may find that landlord demands affect transaction economics substantially, or prevent transaction completion entirely. Many transactions navigate consent processes successfully through professional engagement and appropriate preparation.

The landlord consent challenge stems from leverage dynamics that can differ from ordinary lease administration. Recognizing these dynamics before they manifest enables strategies that may reduce landlord leverage and protect transaction completion. Early lease improvements where cost-benefit analysis supports them, carefully considered landlord engagement, thorough purchase agreement drafting, and realistic timeline planning all contribute to successful consent management.

We encourage business owners contemplating exits to treat real estate considerations as strategic issues warranting early attention rather than administrative details to address during transaction processes. The investment in pre-transaction lease review, consent strategy development, and professional engagement with landlords typically supports smoother transactions, though business owners should approach each strategy with realistic expectations about costs, risks, and likely outcomes.

Your location may be essential to your business value. Proper preparation helps ensure that landlord consent becomes a manageable transaction step rather than an obstacle to realizing that value through a successful exit.