
If your dispensary space violates ADA, who is legally responsible the landlord or tenant? ADA Title III makes both potentially liable. Learn how leases, triple net agreements, buildouts, and control of the premises affect ADA responsibility in retail cannabis.
Under ADA Title III, liability is not limited to the property owner.
The law applies to:
That means:
Even if the landlord owns the building, the dispensary can still be sued.
Even if the lease says the landlord is responsible, a customer can still name the tenant in a lawsuit.
Private contracts do not eliminate federal liability.
ADA responsibility often depends on:
Control matters more than title ownership.
If the entrance lacks accessible access and the dispensary controls that entrance, both landlord and tenant may face liability.
If the lease required the tenant to accept the premises “as is,” that does not eliminate ADA exposure.
If the dispensary performed alterations, ADA requires those alterations to comply with accessibility standards.
Failure to build compliant counters, restrooms, or pathways may fall on the tenant.
Parking lots, sidewalks, and shared hallways are often controlled by the landlord.
However, if customers use those areas to access the dispensary, both parties may be named in litigation.
In a triple net lease, the tenant typically pays:
This shifts financial obligations, not federal liability.
A triple net structure often means the tenant is financially responsible for repairs or compliance work.
But even if the landlord retains structural responsibility, both may still be sued.
Triple net increases operational risk for dispensaries that fail to evaluate accessibility before signing.
ADA distinguishes between:
New construction and alterations must meet stricter standards.
Existing facilities must remove architectural barriers where it is readily achievable.
Readily achievable means easily accomplishable without much difficulty or expense.
This analysis depends on resources and feasibility.
Cannabis buildouts frequently trigger alteration obligations.
Dispensaries often:
Any alteration triggers accessibility compliance requirements.
Security concerns do not eliminate ADA obligations.
Age verification processes must still allow accessible entry.
Before signing, review:
You want clarity on:
Without clear allocation, disputes arise after complaints are filed.
Contractually, yes for financial responsibility.
Legally, no for liability exposure.
ADA allows plaintiffs to sue:
The lease only determines who reimburses whom.
It does not shield either party from being named.
Common process:
Disputes between landlord and tenant often occur after settlement discussions begin.
Poor lease drafting increases legal costs.
ADA review should happen before cannabis licensing approval.
Waiting until after opening increases exposure.
Cannabis retailers face:
ADA claims are common in retail.
Lease structure does not eliminate exposure.
Understanding responsibility reduces both regulatory and litigation risk.