Commercial development site standards: how small is too small?
For those of you that work on the development end of things for freestanding retail/commercial: at what point is a site too small to be appealing for most end users? 

I know most, if not all, national credit tenants have specifications for what they look for in site selection. I rarely see a site less than 1 acre these days that is developed for fast food or other freestanding retail - outside of dense urban areas, of course. The only exception I can think of off-hand is Starbucks, but even they probably have a minimum site size they will work with.

I am a CRE appraiser and I have run into this issue a few times over the years, where I have a site that is smaller than what the market typically prefers. It generally takes a bit of digging to come up with comps of a similar size. I will continue to do that, but I was also hoping to get a general idea of what the development standards are for a typical free-standing end user. 

I just want to dial in a little clearer on at what point a site becomes less desirable to most users due to a smaller size. I assume a site around 35,000 sf is still fairly useful, but when we get down to 19,000 sf we start to run into big constraints for most users for building size, parking, and vehicle circulation. 

I hope that make sense. Any insight is welcome and appreciated. Thank you in advance.
[{"id": "idkjc0h", "text": "I just worked on a Starbucks that required an easement onto the adjacent property to fit the second drive thru lane. It was a 0.67 acre site so your 35k sf number sounds about right. I don\u2019t believe I\u2019ve worked on a STNL build to suit less than half an acre. \n\nYou probably know this, but Net Lease Advisor has a good summary of typical lot and building sizes &amp; many national tenants will provide their site requirements on their real estate pages.", "replies": [], "depth": 1}, {"id": "idkjc5t", "text": "I mean, you kind of nailed it already. There's basically the physical analysis and the investment analysis.\n\nThe site needs to be able to fit the building, parking, circulation, and civil infrastructure. A site that requires a retention pond needs to be larger than one where stormwater is carried off-site or can be economically installed underground. Perhaps the additional cost of squeezing infrastructure reduces the land value, but maybe the pro-forma ultimately says it won't matter. A 5,000sf user with a 5:1 parking requirement needs a larger site than the same user with a 3:1. Fast food users (and even Starbucks) require drive-thru lanes that require additional circulation and room to stack vehicles off of the main road. A square 1ac site is likely easier to work with than a narrow or asymmetrical 1ac site. \n\nWho is your user? A 2 acre site that can fit multiple tenants or has more flexibility in attracting tenants that have a certain prototype size may yield more NOI or more attractive cap rates, making the reversion number different, or maybe it doesn't in some cases. If the site can only accommodate a 1,500sf building, can you economically build it and still achieve a yield? If the tenant goes dark, how easily can you replace them and keep the same yield? Maybe there are a lot more users in the 5,000sf range than the 1,500sf range, but if Amazon wanted 1,500sf and would give you a corporate guaranty, maybe that's more valuable than an unproven user in a more conventional shell.\n\nI don't look at a site and judge it solely on size, but I do judge it on whether it can realistically accommodate whatever my development plan happens to be based on all of those factors.", "replies": [], "depth": 1}, {"id": "idkkrru", "text": "Obviously depends on the local market. I'm working with a 10k hard corner right now and it is..challenging... to find an economic use. If I had 19,000 ft on this location I could have QSR there in a heartbeat, bc the town is constrained and you could fit one (min/no lobby) in that space. We have an inquiry from a convenience store chain (no gas) but I doubt that happens, and that's really our only STNL hope.", "replies": [], "depth": 1}, {"id": "idkqcr7", "text": "As others have said, it depends on what exactly you're working with but your questions got me curious.\n\nUsing a database I created of commercial properties in Massachusetts, you get averages like the below for national tenants (Cumberland Farms, Wendy's, McD's, Bank of America).\n\nAvg. Range in Acres:\n\n* Banks: 0.55 - 0.80\n* Fast Food: 0.78 - 1.05\n* Convenience/Gas: 0.85 - 1.13", "replies": [], "depth": 1}, {"id": "idkx1dg", "text": "I would say that a minimum land square footage for most national retailers is probably around 3/4 of an acre. That\u2019s a tight fit even for something small like a Starbucks. Any smaller and your options do become more limited. At half an acre with an 80% coverage ratio you could still build about 4,000 sf, which could be small shop space that could get some regionals, or franchises. You just have to be careful on parking and usage. In the previous example you likely couldn\u2019t park a 4,000 sf restaurant on 0.50 ac, but you could probably park 4,000 sf of low density service retail or office.\n\nThere\u2019s always exceptions to the rules. New small coffee kiosks are sprouting up everywhere. I\u2019ve seen deals on +/-0.25 ac parcels. Sometimes the land may be a good if the surrounding area is developing as it could have more value to an adjacent owner or developer planning an assemblage. As always Location, location, location.", "replies": [{"id": "idlolvi", "text": "I may not be as experience here as some others but for client requirements .75 is pretty much the starting point I've worked with.\n\nIs something smaller possible?  Probably but its going to need to be pretty special to deal with it vs anything else available", "replies": [], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "idl8393", "text": "Maybe in a more urban/walkable area or along public transit, you could get under 20k SF. (it'd have to not have any parking requirements) Otherwise, I just don't think you can get down that low and still meet zoning/parking requirements", "replies": [], "depth": 1}, {"id": "idoy19h", "text": "Have you seen the movie Zoolander by any chance?", "replies": [{"id": "idoy953", "text": "I\u2019m pretty sure I have but I have a tendency to not remember the details of movies.", "replies": [], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "idquu45", "text": "Not mine, but for context, three brand new teardown and build to suit developments locally:\n\n\n-Three unit; Starbucks/Cell phone store/TBD on .993 ac.\n\n-Single tenant; Biggby Coffee w/wrap around drive-thru on . 73 ac. \n\n-Single tenant; Chik-fil-A w/dual wraparound drive-thru on 1.5 ac.\n\n\nEdited to add:\n\n-Single tenant; drive through car wash on 1.083 ac.", "replies": [], "depth": 1}]