The Feasibility Catch-22: Needing Expert Analysis To Justify Expert Analysis
You've identified a promising site. Now you need architects to confirm buildable density, engineers to assess site conditions, market analysts to validate rents, contractors to estimate costs, and attorneys to navigate zoning.
Total investment for proper early-stage analysis: $35,000 to $75,000. Timeline: 8-12 weeks. Success rate: Maybe 20% of sites pencil.
The paradox? You need this analysis to know if spending this money makes sense.
The Impossible Math of Being Thorough
Let's quantify what proper due diligence actually costs across the expert domains required for confident decision-making:
Architectural feasibility: Even preliminary massing studies run $10,000-25,000. You need to understand maximum buildable area, unit layouts, parking configurations, and efficiency ratios. Without this, you're guessing at your most fundamental metric: how much rentable space can you create?
Market analysis: A legitimate rent study costs $5,000-15,000. Not a CoStar pull—real analysis of true comparables, absorption rates, concession patterns, and submarket dynamics. The difference between $2.00 and $2.25 per square foot determines everything.
Construction pricing: Getting reliable cost estimates requires $5,000-10,000 in preconstruction services. “Free-con services” are common, but you get what you pay for. The spread between contractors can be 30%. One says $250 per foot, another says $325. Who's right?
Engineering assessment: Basic site evaluation runs $8,000-15,000. Soil conditions, utility connections, stormwater management—any of these can add millions to your project or kill it entirely.
Zoning and entitlement review: Legal analysis costs $5,000-10,000. The difference between as-of-right and requiring variances can add a year and hundreds of thousands in costs.
Add it up: $35,000 minimum for answers to basic questions. Will it work? What can I build? What will it cost? What can I charge?
Most developers evaluate dozens of sites to find one that works. The math: $35,000 × 30 sites = $1.05M spent to find less than a handful of viable deals.
The Current Reality of Managing Risk
Faced with impossible economics, developers have created practical workarounds. Each represents a rational response to structural constraints—and each carries unavoidable trade-offs:
The In-House Analysis Approach You've invested in data subscriptions and built proprietary models. CoStar, various platforms, refined Excel templates—typically $30,000+ annually plus hundreds of hours of refinement. This works well for familiar markets and standard projects. The limitation: construction costs remain variable (20-30% spreads are common), and achievable density depends on architectural expertise you may not have in-house. You're making informed estimates, but they're still estimates.
The Relationship-Based Model You work with trusted consultants who provide preliminary insights, often on spec or at reduced rates. This leverages years of relationship building and mutual benefit expectations. The trade-off: spec work naturally gets lower priority (6-8 week turnarounds are standard), and the quality reflects the fee structure. Consultants also tend toward conservative assumptions to limit liability exposure when working informally.
The Hybrid Approach You combine multiple data sources, quick consultant opinions, and past project experience to triangulate feasibility. This spreads risk across multiple inputs. The challenge: synthesis takes significant time, conflicting data creates uncertainty, and you're still vulnerable to the one factor you didn't check—the utility connection distance, the soil condition, the zoning overlay.
None of these approaches is wrong. They're rational adaptations to an irrational system where proper analysis costs more than many sites are worth investigating.
The 70/5 Rule Nobody's Providing
What developers actually need: 70% confidence for 5% of the traditional cost.
This means $2,000-4,000 to understand:
Maximum buildable envelope within zoning
Preliminary construction costs based on local data
Achievable rents from verified comparables
Major site constraints and red flags
Directional yield on cost
Not replacing full diligence—identifying which sites deserve that investment.
This level shouldn't take 8-12 weeks. The core calculations—setback math, FAR analysis, parking ratios, rent bands, cost ranges—are pattern recognition. The data exists. The algorithms are knowable. Yet the industry insists on treating every preliminary analysis like a bespoke work of art.
Why the Industry Can't Solve This
Traditional consultants—architects, engineers, contractors—would love to offer quick, affordable feasibility. They can't.
Professional liability makes even informal opinions dangerous without full documentation. Their business models depend on large projects, not screening services. Senior professionals who could provide rapid assessment are deployed on high-value work. Junior staff need supervision, eliminating any cost advantage.
This isn't incompetence—it's structural misalignment. The industry is organized to go deep on the one project, not to efficiently screen the thirty.
The Path Forward
The feasibility catch-22 isn't a law of nature. It's a solvable problem waiting for structural innovation.
Smart developers are already finding ways around it. They're using technology to handle the 80% that's pattern matching—zoning calculations, market analysis, cost databases—while reserving human expertise for the 20% that requires judgment.
They're getting to that binary double-click/cut bait decision in minutes, not months. They're evaluating 10x more opportunities for a fraction of the cost. They're finding deals others miss because they can move faster with confidence.
The question isn't whether the industry will change; it's whether it will change. It's whether you'll be ahead of that change or scrambling to catch up. Because every month you spend on sites that won't work is a month you didn't spend on sites that would. The opportunity cost compounds. The deals you miss matter more than the analysis you save on.
Ready to escape the feasibility catch-22? See how leading developers are making confident decisions 10x faster.
Try Algoma free for 7 days →