The Movement to Restrict Self-Storage Development

Self-storage has long been a familiar and generally accepted component of the commercial real estate landscape. But that may be changing. Across the country, municipalities are increasingly scrutinizing self-storage proposed development, imposing temporary moratoriums, revisiting zoning regulations and introducing additional approval requirements that could make it more difficult to build new facilities.

What was once largely treated as a conventional commercial real estate use is increasingly becoming a subject of debate among city planners, elected officials and neighborhood organizations. Recent actions in Atlanta, Georgia, Elk Grove, California, and Yonkers, New York, illustrate a growing effort by local governments to exert greater control over where and how self-storage facilities can be developed.

Atlanta has emerged as one of the more prominent examples. In early 2026, city officials moved to prohibit new self-storage development within a half-mile of the Atlanta Beltline, reflecting concerns that storage facilities were inconsistent with the pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use vision for the redevelopment corridor. The city subsequently broadened its approach. In July, 2026 the City Council approved a 180-day moratorium on new self-storage development while officials considered changes to zoning regulations. In October, the council approved legislation requiring special-use permits for new facilities in several zoning districts. Most recently, officials extended a separate moratorium affecting office-institutional properties through March 2027.

Atlanta's position is based largely on land-use priorities. City officials argue that self-storage facilities consume substantial amounts of land, generate relatively few permanent jobs, create vehicle and truck traffic, and may limit opportunities for housing, retail and other neighborhood-serving businesses.

The trend is not limited to major metropolitan areas. In August 2026, the City Council in Elk Grove, California, unanimously approved a two-year moratorium on new self-storage facilities. City officials cited concerns about the growing concentration of storage properties and the limited economic contribution they provide compared with alternative uses. With over a dozen existing facilities and three additional projects approved or under construction, local officials concluded that it was time to reassess the city's approach to storage development.

On the East Coast, the City Council in Yonkers, New York, adopted a similar measure in September 2026. There, City officials unanimously approved a temporary moratorium on new self-storage facilities while the city examines its zoning and land-use policies. The ordinance specifically cited concerns that storage developments generally generate less tax revenue than residential, mixed-use and other commercial properties, create relatively few jobs after construction, and may negatively affect neighborhood character and walkability.

Although the circumstances differ, the motivations behind these actions are remarkably similar. Municipalities are increasingly evaluating development proposals through the lens of economic productivity, employment generation, housing availability, neighborhood character and long-term community planning. Self-storage is particularly vulnerable to this scrutiny because of its relatively low employment density. A facility may occupy a sizable commercial parcel but employ only a handful of people. For cities attempting to attract businesses, increase housing inventory and revitalize commercial corridors, that comparison can make storage a less attractive development option.

There is also a political dimension. Residents and neighborhood organizations often have considerable influence over local land-use decisions. Concerns about traffic, aesthetics, market saturation and the changing character of neighborhoods can create pressure on elected officials to restrict certain development types. For the self-storage industry, these developments raise important questions about the future availability of land, the entitlement process and the predictability of local development regulations. Temporary moratoriums can delay projects, while special-use permits and increasingly restrictive zoning requirements introduce additional uncertainty, expense and potential opposition.

The industry should not dismiss the concerns being raised. Developers have an opportunity to respond through better site selection, improved architecture, more thoughtful landscaping and projects that complement surrounding uses. In some markets, incorporating storage into mixed-use developments or redeveloping underutilized properties may offer a path forward. Self-storage serves an important role for households, businesses and communities, and its demand is driven by fundamental economic and demographic needs. Restricting new development does not necessarily eliminate that demand. Such restrictions may simply limit supply and reduce consumer choices.

The actions in Atlanta, Elk Grove and Yonkers may be early indicators of a broader shift in how municipalities view self-storage. Whether this becomes a widespread national trend remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that developers can no longer assume that self-storage will receive the same zoning treatment and development consideration it has historically enjoyed. For an industry accustomed to navigating traditional real estate development challenges, municipal regulation may be emerging as one of its most significant obstacles.

Scott Zucker is a partner in the law firm of Weissmann Zucker Euster + Oblinger P.C. in Atlanta, GA. Scott specializes in business litigation with an emphasis on real estate, landlord-tenant and construction law. For more visit www.wzlegal.com.

If you are a self storage operator and member of the national SSA or an affiliated state SSA, you are eligible to join the Self Storage Legal Network, receiving a one-year subscription for unlimited questions on legal information relating to the industry. www.selfstoragelaw.com.

The Movement to Restrict Self-Storage Development

Comments