Before a pro forma can tell you whether a development is worth pursuing, the site has to support the project the model assumes. Resolve the parcel, jurisdiction, approval path, and civil constraints before the project becomes expensive to change.
Direct answer
Site and regulatory feasibility is the sourced evaluation of what a parcel, jurisdiction, approval pathway, and physical conditions can support. Financial feasibility is a connected—but distinct—test of whether the viable program produces acceptable economics.
Decision guide
| Criterion | Primary question | Core inputs | Bottom line |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regulatory | Can the proposed use and development program comply with the parcel’s zoning and applicable plans? | Use, density, FAR, height, setbacks, lot coverage, open space, parking, overlays, and specific plans. | Establish what the rules allow before relying on the program. |
| Entitlement | What planning approvals and review path are likely required? | By-right or discretionary path, approval bodies, studies, hearings, findings, conditions, and milestones. | Map the approval path and the questions that still require agency confirmation. |
| Physical + civil | Can the site support the proposed program in practice? | Topography, grading, access, frontage, utilities, stormwater, detention, easements, and existing conditions. | Surface the constraints that can change scope, cost, or sequence. |
| Financial | Do the economics work for the viable project? | Revenue, cost drivers, fees, exactions, financing, timing, and return assumptions. | Test the economics using site and entitlement assumptions the team can defend. |
These disciplines should iterate. The distinction is not a universal order of operations; it is a way to keep financial assumptions tied to the site and approval context that create them.
Planning approval
Real estate entitlement is the process of securing the planning and land-use approvals required for a proposed development.
The exact path depends on the jurisdiction, parcel, and project. Entitlement establishes whether and under what conditions a project may proceed. It is not the same as a building permit, which addresses the construction documents and technical requirements that follow.
Examples: Los Angeles planning approvals · Sacramento entitlements
The project generally proceeds when it meets applicable objective standards and does not require additional formal planning approvals.
The project requires judgment, findings, or additional approval and may involve hearings, conditions, or revisions.
These are common categories, not one universal sequence. Every project must be checked against the terminology and process of its reviewing jurisdiction.
What changes by workflow
Identify the site, intended use, and decision to be made. Add surveys, title information, program targets, or preliminary drawings when available.
Bring use, density, FAR, height, setbacks, lot coverage, open space, parking, overlays, and specific plans into one buildable view, with governing sections cited.
Establish whether the project appears by-right or may require administrative or discretionary approval, then identify likely bodies, studies, findings, conditions, and milestones.
Review comparable approvals to see what was requested, approved, conditioned, or reduced—without treating precedent as a guarantee.
Evaluate topography, grading, access, frontage, utilities, stormwater, detention, easements, and existing conditions that could affect scope, cost, or sequence.
Turn the buildable envelope into program, floor-plate, parking, efficiency, and circulation options tested against the same constraints.
Feed yield, fees, exactions, infrastructure, conditions, and schedule assumptions into the financial model.
Record the sources, reasoning, open questions, and verification needs behind a go, revise, pause, or no-go recommendation.
One study, every discipline
The useful output is not a collection of disconnected checklists. It is one visible chain of reasoning from parcel rules to approval path, site constraints, concept options, and the investment decision.
Use, density, FAR, height, setbacks, lot coverage, open space, and parking resolved into a buildable envelope, with governing sections attached.
Overlays, specific plans, likely discretionary steps, commonly requested studies, and the local review context.
Comparable proposals, approvals, conditions, and reductions that clarify local practice without promising the same outcome.
Program mix, floor plates, efficiency, parking strategy, and circulation tested against the site constraints.
By-right versus discretionary, approval bodies, likely conditions, required studies, and a realistic milestone sequence.
Topography, grading, access, frontage, utilities, stormwater, detention, easements, and existing conditions.
Revenue program, cost drivers, fees, exactions, and timeline assumptions built from the viable project.
Requirements tied to governing sources, assumptions stated, and unresolved questions left visible for the right professional or agency.
The downstream handoff
Feasibility identifies the likely rules, agencies, studies, constraints, and approval pathway while the project is still being shaped. Entitlement and design turn that early understanding into a proposed project and, eventually, a coordinated set of documents.
Building plan review examines submitted construction documents for compliance with applicable codes and standards. The goal is not to predict or replace the plan checker. It is to give every phase the same sourced project context.
Feasibility
Entitlement
Design
Completeness
Compliance
Plan review
One project context
Sources and assumptions carried forward.
Connected intelligence
AutoSitu’s operating-system approach starts with one site model that brings together the zoning and regulatory envelope, jurisdiction practice, entitlement pathway, civil due diligence, concept massing, yield, and deal assumptions.
As the project moves forward, that context can carry into design review, submittal completeness, compliance, enterprise QA/QC, takeoff, scope analysis, and construction readiness. Requirements remain tied to sources, findings remain reviewable, and human teams and public agencies retain authority over decisions.
Feasibility
Entitlement
Design review
Completeness
Compliance
QA/QC
Takeoff
Scope
Construction readiness
One evolving project intelligence layer beneath every phase.
Decision timing
The objective is not certainty where none exists. It is a defensible early read: what the team knows, what the sources support, what appears viable, and what must be confirmed next.
Before acquisition or land control
When comparing multiple sites or development programs
Before major architecture, engineering, or entitlement spend
When entering an unfamiliar jurisdiction
When a project may require discretionary approvals
When overlays, incentives, parking, or interpretation may affect yield
When access, utilities, grading, drainage, frontage, or easements may change scope
Before relying on a pro forma built from unverified site assumptions
Entitlement and feasibility FAQ
Direct answers for teams evaluating a parcel, an approval pathway, and the assumptions behind a development decision.
Continue the project
Evidence
Planning-path and plan-review definitions were checked against municipal sources. AutoSitu capability language was checked against the current feasibility product page.
Bring zoning, jurisdiction practice, entitlement pathway, civil due diligence, concept massing, yield, and deal assumptions into one sourced feasibility study—before the project becomes expensive to change.
Evaluate a Site