INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES INC - Annual Report: 2022 (Form 10-K)

Table of Contents

​

​

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

​

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

​

​

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2022

​

OR

​

​

For the Transition Period From _______to ________

​

Commission File Number: 001-37949

​

Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

​

​

​

​

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

​

None.

​

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. YES þ  NO ◻

​

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act. YES ◻  NO þ

​

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES þ  NO ◻

​

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (Section 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit such files). YES þ  NO ◻

​

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or emerging growth company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer," "smaller reporting company," and "emerging growth company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

​

​

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the Registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ◻

​

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report.  ☑

​

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ◻

​

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ◻

​

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). YES ☐  NO ☑

​

The aggregate market value of the common stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant was approximately $3.0 billion, based upon the last reported sale price of $109.87 per share on the New York Stock Exchange on June 30, 2022, the last business day of the Registrant’s most recently completed second quarter.

​

As of February 28, 2023, there were 28,002,799 shares of common stock outstanding.

​

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

​

Portions of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc.’s Proxy Statement with respect to its 2023 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed not later than 120 days after the end of the registrant’s fiscal year are incorporated by reference into Part III hereof.

​

​

​

Table of Contents

INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES, INC.

FORM 10-K – ANNUAL REPORT

DECEMBER 31, 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

​

​

2

Table of Contents

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

We make statements in this report that are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (set forth in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”)). In particular, our statements regarding anticipated growth in our funds from operations and anticipated market and regulatory conditions, our strategic direction, demographics, results of operations, plans and objectives are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements involve numerous risks and uncertainties, and you should not rely on them as predictions of future events. Forward-looking statements depend on assumptions, data or methods which may be incorrect or imprecise, and we may not be able to realize them. We do not guarantee that the transactions and events described will happen as described (or that they will happen at all). You can identify forward-looking statements by the use of forward-looking terminology such as “believes,” “expects,” “may,” “will,” “should,” “seeks,” “approximately,” “intends,” “plans,” “estimates” or “anticipates” or the negative of these words and phrases or similar words or phrases, as well as by discussions of strategy, plans or intentions. The following factors, among others, could cause actual results and future events to differ materially from those set forth or contemplated in the forward-looking statements:

3

Table of Contents

While forward-looking statements reflect our good faith beliefs, they are not guarantees of future performance. We disclaim any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. For a further discussion of these and other factors that could impact our future results, performance or transactions, see Item 1A, “Risk Factors.”

Market data and industry forecasts and projections used in this Annual Report on Form 10-K have been obtained from independent industry sources. Forecasts, projections and other forward-looking information obtained from such sources are subject to similar qualifications and uncertainties as other forward-looking statements in this report.

4

Table of Contents

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

General

As used herein, the terms “we”, “us”, “our” or the “Company” refer to Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., a Maryland corporation, and any of our subsidiaries, including IIP Operating Partnership, LP, a Delaware limited partnership (our “Operating Partnership”).

We are an internally-managed REIT focused on the acquisition, ownership and management of specialized industrial properties leased to experienced, state-licensed operators for their regulated cannabis facilities. We have acquired and intend to continue to acquire our properties through sale-leaseback transactions and third-party purchases. We have leased and expect to continue to lease our properties on a triple-net lease basis, where the tenant is responsible for all aspects of and costs related to the property and its operation during the lease term, including structural repairs, maintenance, real estate taxes and insurance.

We were incorporated in Maryland on June 15, 2016. We conduct our business through a traditional umbrella partnership real estate investment trust, or UPREIT structure, in which our properties are owned by our Operating Partnership, directly or through subsidiaries. We are the sole general partner of our Operating Partnership and own, directly or through subsidiaries, 100% of the limited partnership interests in our Operating Partnership. As of December 31, 2022, we had 19 full-time employees.

Our corporate office is located at 1389 Center Drive, Suite 200, Park City, Utah 84098. Our telephone number is (858) 997-3332.

2022 Business Update

Investments

During 2022, we acquired nine new properties and made additional investments into existing properties under development or redevelopment. As of December 31, 2022, we owned 110 properties comprising an aggregate of approximately 8.7 million rentable square feet (including approximately 1.6 million rentable square feet under development/redevelopment) in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Washington. Of these properties, we include 108 properties in our operating portfolio, which were 100% leased to state-licensed cannabis operators as of December 31, 2022, with a weighted-average remaining lease term of approximately 15.3 years. We do not include in our operating portfolio two of our properties, which were previously leased to Kings Garden Inc. (“Kings Garden”), and an expansion project at a property where Kings Garden continues to occupy the property pursuant to a confidential, contingent settlement agreement, all of which were under development as of December 31, 2022, and together are expected to comprise approximately 395,000 rentable square feet upon completion of development.

As of December 31, 2022, we had invested an aggregate of approximately $2.2 billion across our property portfolio (consisting of purchase price and construction funding and improvements reimbursed to tenants, but excluding transaction costs) and had committed an additional approximately $125.5 million to reimburse certain tenants and sellers for completion of construction and improvements at our properties. These statistics do not include an $18.5 million loan commitment from us to a developer for construction of a regulated cannabis cultivation and processing facility in California, of which we have funded approximately $18.0 million as of December 31, 2022. For more information regarding our properties and tenants, see the sections entitled “— Tenant Concentration” and “— Geographic Concentration” below.

5

Table of Contents

Property Sale

In November 2022, we sold one of our Pennsylvania properties that was leased to a subsidiary of Maitri Holdings, LLC (“Maitri”) for $23.5 million (approximately $461 per square foot), excluding transaction costs, and recognized a gain on sale of the property of approximately $3.6 million.

Financial Results

​

Capital Activities

In April 2022, we issued 1,815,790 shares of common stock in an underwritten public offering, which includes the exercise in full of the underwriters’ option to purchase an additional 236,842 shares, resulting in net proceeds of approximately $330.9 million.

During the year ended December 31, 2022, we sold 117,023 shares of our common stock pursuant to an “at-the-market” offering program (the “Prior ATM Program”) for net proceeds of approximately $21.1 million.

During the year ended December 31, 2022, we issued 413,166 shares of our common stock upon exchange by holders of approximately $26.9 million of outstanding principal amount of our 3.75% Exchangeable Senior Notes due 2024 (the “Exchangeable Senior Notes”).

In January 2023, we terminated the Prior ATM Program and entered into new equity distribution agreements with four sales agents, pursuant to which we may offer and sell from time to time through an “at-the-market” offering program, or ATM Program, up to $500.0 million in shares of our common stock. As of February 28, 2023, we had not sold any shares of common stock under the ATM Program.

Our Properties

Generally

We have acquired and intend to continue to acquire specialized industrial real estate assets operated by state-licensed cannabis operators through sale-leaseback transactions and third-party purchases. In sale-leaseback transactions, concurrently upon closing of the acquisition, we lease the properties back to the sellers under long-term, triple-net lease agreements. Based on our properties and ongoing review of potential acquisitions, indoor cultivation facilities generally have similar shells as standard light industrial buildings or greenhouses. However, based on our diligence, the regulated cannabis cultivation process typically requires a finely tuned environment to achieve consistent high quality and specificity in cannabinoid levels and to maximize yields, which translates into certain capital improvements in the building’s infrastructure. These improvements can include enhanced HVAC systems for climate and humidity control, high capacity electrical and plumbing systems, specialized lighting systems, and sophisticated building management, cultivation monitoring and security systems. Through our sale-leaseback strategy, we serve as a source of capital to these licensed regulated cannabis operators, allowing them to redeploy their sale proceeds into their core operations to grow

6

Table of Contents

their business and achieve higher returns. We may also purchase properties from third parties and fund the necessary improvements through a long-term lease with an identified tenant, which provides those tenants with increased cash flow to deploy in their operating businesses.

The following table sets forth certain information regarding our property portfolio by property type for the year ended and as of December 31, 2022 (dollars in thousands):

​

​

As of December 31, 2022, the tenant at each of our leased properties is generally responsible for paying all structural repairs, maintenance expenses, insurance and real estate taxes related to the property during the term of the applicable lease. For additional information on our properties as of December 31, 2022, see Item 2, “Properties.”

Our Competitive Strengths

We believe that we have the following competitive strengths:

7

Table of Contents

Our Business Objectives and Growth Strategies

Our principal business objective is to maximize stockholder returns through a combination of (1) distributions to our stockholders, and (2) sustainable long-term growth in cash flows from increased rents, which we hope to pass on to stockholders in the form of increased distributions. Our primary strategy to achieve our business objective is to acquire and own a portfolio of specialized industrial properties, including regulated cannabis facilities leased to tenants holding the requisite state licenses to operate in the regulated cannabis industry. This strategy includes the following components:

Our Target Markets

Our target markets include states that have established regulated cannabis programs. As of December 31, 2022, we owned 110 properties located in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Washington. According to the Marijuana Business Daily, as of January 31, 2023, 39 states and the District of Columbia have legalized cannabis for medical use, and 21 states and the District of Columbia have legalized cannabis for adult-use.

Although these states have approved the regulated use of cannabis, the applicable state and local laws and regulations vary widely. For example, most states’ laws allow commercial production and sales through dispensaries and set forth rigorous licensing requirements; in other states the licensing rules are unclear. In some states, dispensaries are mandated to operate on a not-for-profit basis. Some states permit home cultivation activities. The states also differ on the

8

Table of Contents

form in which they permit cannabis to be sold. For example, some states do not permit cannabis-infused products such as concentrates, edibles and topicals, while other states ban smoking cannabis.

In addition, we expect other factors will be important in the development and growth of the regulated cannabis industry in the United States, including the timeframes for developing regulations and issuing licenses in states that recently passed laws allowing for regulated cannabis; continued legislative authorization of cannabis at the state level; support from local municipalities within a state; federal, state and local taxation of regulated cannabis products; and the level of enforcement against illicit, non-licensed cannabis activities in a state. Progress in the regulated cannabis industry is not assured and any number of factors could slow or halt progress in this area.

Market Opportunity

The Regulated Cannabis Industry

Overview

In the United States, the development and growth of the regulated cannabis industry has generally been driven by state law and regulation, and accordingly, the market varies on a state-by-state basis. State laws that legalize and regulate medical-use cannabis allow patients to consume cannabis for medicinal reasons with a designated healthcare provider’s recommendation, subject to various requirements and limitations. States have authorized numerous medical conditions as qualifying conditions for treatment with medical-use cannabis, which vary significantly from state to state and may include, among others, treatment for cancer, glaucoma, HIV/AIDs, wasting syndrome, pain, nausea, seizures, muscle spasms, multiple sclerosis, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), migraines, arthritis, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, lupus, residual limb pain, spinal cord injuries, inflammatory bowel disease and terminal illness.

Industry Trends

According to BDSA, state-legal cannabis sales in the United States are projected to grow from $26.1 billion in 2022 to $44.5 billion by 2027, representing a compound annual growth rate of approximately 11%.

As the industry continues to evolve, new ways to consume regulated cannabis products are being developed in order for patients to have the treatment needed for their condition and provide consumers safe, consistent and appealing options. In addition to smoking and vaporizing of dried leaves, cannabis can be incorporated into a variety of edibles, pills, spray products, transdermal patches and topicals, including salves, ointments, lotions and sprays with low or high levels of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”), the principal psychoactive constituent of the cannabis plant.

As with any nascent but growing industry, operational and business practices evolve and become more sophisticated over time. We believe that the quality and experience of industry participants and the development of sound business, operational and compliance practices have strengthened significantly over time, increasing the attractiveness for investment in the regulated cannabis industry.

Shifting Public Attitudes and State Law and Legislative Activity

We believe that the growth of the regulated cannabis industry has been fueled, in part, by the rapidly changing public attitudes in the United States. In a poll by Pew Research Center released in November 2022, 88% of U.S. adults supported either 1) legalization of cannabis for both medical- and adult-use (59%) or 2) legalization of cannabis for medical-use only (30%).

As of January 31, 2023, 39 states, plus the District of Columbia, have passed laws allowing their citizens to use medical cannabis. The first state to permit the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes was California in 1996, upon adoption of the Compassionate Care Act. The law allowed doctors to recommend cannabis for serious medical conditions and patients were permitted to use, possess and grow cannabis themselves. Several other states adopted medical-use cannabis laws in 1998 and 1999, and the remaining medical-use cannabis states adopted their laws on

9

Table of Contents

various dates through 2022. In addition, as of January 31, 2023, 21 states, plus the District of Columbia, have legalized cannabis for adult-use.

Following the approval of state-regulated cannabis, state programs must be developed and businesses must be licensed before commencing cannabis sales. Some states have developed the necessary procedures and licensing requirements quickly, while other states have taken years to develop their programs for production and sales of cannabis. Even where regulatory frameworks for regulated cannabis production and sales are in place, states tend to revise these rules over time. These revisions often impact sales, making it difficult to predict the potential of new markets. States may restrict the number of regulated cannabis businesses permitted; impose significant taxes on regulated cannabis products, in addition to taxes imposed by local municipalities; take limited enforcement actions against non-licensed cannabis operators; restrict the method by which cannabis can be consumed; restrict the ability of alternative health care providers to recommend medical cannabis for treatment; limit the medical conditions that are eligible for cannabis treatment; or require registration of doctors and/or patients, each of which can limit growth of the regulated cannabis industry in those states. Alternatively, states may relax their initial regulations relating to regulated cannabis production and sales and take other actions to support the growth of the regulated cannabis program, which would likely accelerate growth of the regulated cannabis industry in such states.

Access to Capital

To date, the status of state-licensed cannabis under federal law has limited the ability of state-licensed industry participants to fully access the U.S. banking system and traditional financing sources. These limitations, when combined with the high costs of maintaining licensed and stringently regulated cannabis facilities, substantially increase the cost of production. While future changes in federal and state laws may ultimately open up financing options that have not been widely available to date in this industry, we believe that our sale-leaseback and other real estate solutions to state-licensed industry participants will continue to be attractive capital options for regulated operators.

Market Opportunity and Associated Risks

We focus on purchasing specialized industrial real estate assets for the regulated cannabis industry. We believe that our sale-leaseback and other real estate solutions offer an attractive alternative to state-licensed cannabis operators who may have limited access to traditional financing alternatives. We have acquired and intend to continue to acquire regulated cannabis facilities in states that permit regulated cannabis operations.

Notwithstanding the foregoing market opportunity and trends, and despite legalization at the state level, we continue to believe that the current state of federal law creates significant uncertainty and potential risks associated with investing in regulated cannabis facilities, including but not limited to potentially heightened risks related to the use of such facilities for adult-use cannabis operations, if a state passes such laws. For a more complete description of these risks, see the sections “— Governmental Regulation” below and “Risks Related to Regulation” under Item 1A, “Risk Factors.”

Market Dynamics in Regulated Cannabis State Programs

States vary significantly in their market dynamics, driven by many factors, including, but not limited to, regulatory frameworks, enforcement policies with respect to illicit, unlicensed cannabis operations, taxation and licensing structures.

Unit Pricing for Regulated Cannabis Products

Many states continue to experience significant declines in unit pricing for regulated cannabis products, with that decline more pronounced in certain states than in others, which compresses operating margins for operators. As a result, certain regulated cannabis operators have recently announced that they are consolidating operations or shuttering certain operations to reduce costs, which if prolonged, could have a material negative impact on operators’ demand for regulated cannabis facilities, including our existing tenants.

​

10

Table of Contents

Inflation and Supply Chain Constraints

The U.S. economy is experiencing a sustained increase in inflation rates, which we believe is negatively impacting our tenants. This inflation has impacted costs for labor and production inputs for regulated cannabis operators, in addition to increasing costs of construction for development and redevelopment projects. Ongoing labor shortages and global supply chain issues also continue to adversely impact costs and timing for completion of these development and redevelopment projects, which are resulting in cost overruns and delays in commencing operations on certain of our tenants’ projects.

Reduced Capital Availability for Tenants

Recently, financial markets have been volatile, reflecting heightened geopolitical risks and material tightening of financial conditions since the U.S. Federal Reserve began increasing interest rates in spring of 2022 and continued uncertainty regarding monetary policy.

Driven in part by overall macroeconomic conditions, capital availability has significantly declined for regulated cannabis operators. According to Viridian Capital Advisors (“Viridian”), total equity and debt capital raising for public and private cannabis companies in North America decreased by 68% in 2022 versus 2021. Even more pronounced, total capital raised for the U.S. regulated cannabis cultivation and retail sector was down over 70% in 2022 versus 2021, with equity capital raised in the sector down over 96% and no equity deal in 2022 raising more than $25 million, according to Viridian. According to Viridian, cannabis stock prices (as measured by the MSOS ETF) had declined more than 85% since their February 2021 peak, and were trading at multi-year lows.

Also according to Viridian, mergers and acquisitions activity in the North American regulated cannabis industry declined significantly in 2022, with aggregate transaction volume in dollar terms down 73% on 29% fewer transactions versus 2021.

Tenant Concentration

As of December 31, 2022, all of our revenues were derived from 110 properties. The following table sets forth certain information regarding the top ten tenants in our property portfolio that represented the largest total invested and committed capital as of and for the year ended December 31, 2022 (dollars in thousands):

​

​

11

Table of Contents

Many of our tenants have limited histories of operations, and have not yet been profitable, or have been profitable only for a short period of time. For some or all of 2023, we expect that many of our tenants will continue to incur losses as their expenses increase in connection with the expansion of their operations and the current operating environment, and that they have made and will continue to make rent payments to us from proceeds from the sale of the applicable property or cash on hand, and not funds from operations. Furthermore, each of our leases does not prohibit the tenant from conducting adult-use cannabis operations at the applicable property, provided such operations are in compliance with applicable state and local laws. As such, our tenant may conduct adult-use cannabis operations at the property it leases from us, which in turn could expose that tenant, us and our property to different and greater risks, including heightened risks of enforcement of federal laws. For example, Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Virginia and Washington permit licensed adult-use cannabis operations, and our leases with tenants in those states allow for adult-use cannabis operations to be conducted at the properties in compliance with state and local laws.

In July 2022, Kings Garden defaulted on its obligations to pay rent at all of the properties it leases with us, and pursuant to a confidential, conditional settlement agreement executed on September 11, 2022 between us and Kings Garden, we terminated the leases for two properties that were in development or redevelopment as of December 31, 2022 and regained possession of those properties. We have recovered approximately $15.4 million of funds paid to Kings Garden. See Note 11 “Commitments and Contingencies — Litigation — Kings Garden Lawsuit” to our consolidated financial statements for more information.

In November 2022, Parallel defaulted on its obligations to pay rent at one of our properties in Pennsylvania, and Green Peak Industries, Inc. (“Green Peak”) defaulted on its obligations to pay rent at one our properties in Michigan. In February 2023, Parallel also defaulted on its obligations to pay rent at one of our properties in Texas.

In January 2023, we also executed limited rent deferrals for Holistic Industries Inc. (“Holistic”) for two of our properties in California and Michigan, and a limited rent deferral for Calyx Peak, Inc. at our Missouri property.

See each of the discussions under Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” under the captions “Many of our existing tenants are, and we expect that many of our future tenants will be, companies with limited histories of operations and may be unable to pay rent with funds from operations or at all, which could adversely affect our cash available to make distributions to our stockholders or otherwise impair the value of our common stock,” and “Because we lease our properties to a limited number of tenants, and to the extent we depend on a limited number of tenants in the future, the inability of any single tenant to make its lease payments could adversely affect our business and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.”

12

Table of Contents

Geographic Concentration

The following table sets forth certain state-by-state information regarding our property portfolio for the year ended and as of December 31, 2022 (dollars in thousands):

​

See discussion under Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” under the caption “Our properties are, and are expected to continue to be, geographically concentrated in states that permit licensed cannabis operations, and we will be subject to social, political and economic risks of doing business in these states and any other state in which we may own property.” The regulated cannabis market is in its early stages; is generally subject to strict regulations providing for, among other things, comprehensive product testing and tracking systems, limited medical conditions for treatment with medical-use cannabis, limitations on the form in which medical cannabis can be consumed and enhanced registration requirements for patients and physicians; is subject in many instances to significant taxation burdens at the federal, state and local levels; competes in many instances with non-licensed cannabis operators due in part to limited enforcement by state and local authorities; and may face opposition from local municipalities within a state, any of which may contribute to a particular market not growing and developing in the way that we or our tenants projected.

Our Financing Strategy

We intend to meet our long-term liquidity needs through cash flow from operations and the issuance of equity and debt securities, including common stock, preferred stock and notes. Where possible, we also may issue limited partnership interests in our Operating Partnership to acquire properties from existing owners seeking a tax-deferred transaction. We expect to issue equity and debt securities at times when we believe that we can reinvest the proceeds of such an offering in accretive property acquisitions. We may also issue common stock to permanently finance properties that were previously financed by debt securities. However, we cannot assure you that we will have access to the capital markets at times and on terms that are acceptable to us. Our ability to access the capital markets and to obtain other financing arrangements is also significantly limited by our focus on serving the regulated cannabis industry. Our

13

Table of Contents

investment guidelines provide that our aggregate borrowings (secured and unsecured) will not exceed 50% of the cost of our tangible assets at the time of any new borrowing, subject to our board of directors’ discretion.

We have filed an automatic shelf registration statement, which may permit us, from time to time, to offer and sell common stock, preferred stock, warrants, debt securities and other securities to the extent necessary or advisable to meet our liquidity needs.

Capital raising activities by U.S. REITs experienced a steep decline in 2022, with that decline more pronounced in the second half of 2022. According to the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, Inc. (“NAREIT”), U.S. REITs raised $41.5 billion in debt and equity during 2022, compared to $133.6 billion in 2021, representing the lowest level since 2009.

Recently, financial markets have been volatile in general, which has also significantly reduced our access to capital. If sustained, this would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, including our ability to continue to make acquisitions of new properties and fund investments for improvements at existing properties.

Risk Management

As of December 31, 2022, we owned 110 properties located in 19 states. Many of our tenants are tenants at multiple properties. We will continue to attempt to diversify the investment size and location of our portfolio of properties in order to manage our portfolio-level risk. Over the long term, we intend that no single property will exceed 20% of our total assets and that properties leased to a single tenant (individually or together with its affiliates) will not exceed 20% of our total assets. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the industry continues to experience significant consolidation among regulated cannabis operators, and certain of our tenant operators may combine, increasing the concentration of our tenant portfolio with those consolidated operators.

We expect that single tenants will continue to occupy our properties pursuant to triple-net lease arrangements in general and, therefore, the success of our investments will be materially dependent on the financial stability of these tenants. Many of our existing tenants have limited histories of operations, and have not yet been profitable, or have been profitable only for a short period of time. As such, we expect that many of our current and future tenants will continue to incur losses as their expenses increase in connection with the expansion of their operations, and that they have made and will make rent payments to us from proceeds from the sale of the applicable property or cash on hand, and not funds from operations. We also expect the success of our tenants, and their ability to make rent payments to us, to significantly depend on the projected growth and development of the applicable state market; as many of these state markets have a very limited history, and other state markets are still forming their regulations, issuing licenses and otherwise establishing the market framework, significant uncertainty exists as to whether these markets will develop in the way that we or our tenants project.

We evaluate the credit quality of our tenants and any guarantors on an ongoing basis. In addition, we monitor the payment history data for all of our tenants and, in some instances, we monitor our tenants by periodically conducting site visits and meeting with the tenants to discuss their operations. In many instances, we will generally not be entitled to financial results or other credit-related data from our tenants. See the section “Risks Related to Our Business” under Item 1A, “Risk Factors.”

Competition

The current market for properties that meet our investment objectives is limited. In addition, we believe finding properties that are appropriate for the specific use of allowing regulated cannabis operators may be limited as more competitors enter the market, and as regulated cannabis operators obtain greater access to alternative financing sources, including but not limited to equity and debt financing sources.

We face significant competition from a diverse mix of market participants, including but not limited to, other companies with similar business models, independent investors, hedge funds and other real estate investors, hard money

14

Table of Contents

lenders, and cannabis operators themselves, all of whom may compete with us in our efforts to acquire real estate zoned for regulated cannabis facilities. In some instances, we will be competing to acquire real estate with persons who have no interest in the cannabis industry, but have identified value in a piece of real estate that we may be interested in acquiring.

These competitors may prevent us from acquiring desirable properties or may cause an increase in the price we must pay for properties. Our competitors may have greater financial and operational resources than we do and may be willing to pay more for certain assets or may be willing to accept more risk than we believe can be prudently managed. In particular, larger companies may enjoy significant competitive advantages that result from, among other things, a lower cost of capital and enhanced operating efficiencies. Our competitors may also adopt transaction structures similar to ours, which would decrease our competitive advantage in offering flexible transaction terms.

In addition, due to a number of factors, including but not limited to potential greater clarity of the laws and regulations governing regulated cannabis by state and federal governments, the number of entities and the amount of funds competing for suitable investment properties may increase substantially, resulting in increased demand and increased prices paid for these properties. Furthermore, changes in federal regulations pertaining to cannabis could also lead to increased access to U.S. capital markets for our competitors and for regulated cannabis operators (including but not limited to access to the Nasdaq Stock Market and/or the New York Stock Exchange). We compete for the acquisition of properties primarily based on purchase price and the lease terms (including rental rates, lease duration and improvement allowances, among others) in our sale leaseback and other real estate capital transactions. If we pay higher prices for properties or offer lease terms that are less attractive for us, our profitability may decrease, and you may experience a lower return on our common stock. Increased competition for properties may also preclude us from acquiring those properties that would generate attractive returns to us.

Governmental Regulation

Federal Laws Applicable to the Regulated Cannabis Industry

Cannabis (with the exception of hemp containing no more than 0.3% THC by dry weight) is illegal under U.S. federal law. The U.S. federal government regulates drugs through the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (the “CSA”). The CSA classifies marijuana (cannabis) as a Schedule I controlled substance, and as such, the manufacture, distribution and dispensing of marijuana is illegal under U.S. federal law. Moreover, on two separate occasions the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the CSA trumps state law. That means that the federal government may enforce U.S. drug laws against companies operating in accordance with state cannabis laws, creating a climate of legal uncertainty regarding the production and sale of cannabis. Unless and until Congress amends the CSA with respect to cannabis (and the President approves such amendment), there is a risk that the federal law enforcement authorities responsible for enforcing the CSA, including the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”), may enforce current federal law.

Under the Obama administration, the DOJ previously issued memoranda, including the so-called “Cole Memo” on August 29, 2013, providing internal guidance to federal prosecutors concerning enforcement of federal cannabis prohibitions under the CSA. This guidance essentially characterized as inefficient the use of federal law enforcement resources to prosecute those complying with state laws allowing the use, manufacture and distribution of cannabis where states have enacted laws legalizing cannabis in some form and have also implemented strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems to control the cultivation, processing, distribution, sale and possession of cannabis, conduct in compliance with those laws and regulations was not a priority for the DOJ. Instead, the Cole Memo directed U.S. Attorney’s Offices discretion not to investigate or prosecute state law compliant participants in the medical cannabis industry who did not implicate one or more specifically identified federal government priorities, including preventing interstate diversion or distribution of cannabis to minors.

On January 4, 2018, then-U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a written memorandum rescinding the Cole Memo and related internal guidance issued by the DOJ regarding federal law enforcement priorities involving cannabis (the “Sessions Memo”). The Sessions Memo instructed federal prosecutors to enforce the laws enacted by Congress and to follow well-established principles that govern all federal prosecutors when deciding whether to pursue prosecutions related to cannabis activities. As a result, federal prosecutors could, and still can, use their prosecutorial discretion to

15

Table of Contents

decide to prosecute actors compliant with their state laws. The Sessions Memo states that “these principles require federal prosecutors deciding which cases to prosecute to weigh all relevant considerations, including federal law enforcement priorities set by the Attorney General, the seriousness of the crime, the deterrent effect of criminal prosecution, and the cumulative impact of particular crimes on the community.” The Sessions Memo went on to state that given the DOJ’s well-established general principles, “previous nationwide guidance specific to marijuana is unnecessary and is rescinded, effective immediately.” Although there have not been any identified prosecutions of state law compliant cannabis entities, there can be no assurance that the federal government will not enforce federal laws relating to cannabis in the future and it remains unclear what impact the Sessions Memo will have on the regulated cannabis industry, if any.

Jeff Sessions resigned as U.S. Attorney General on November 7, 2018.

On February 14, 2019, William Barr was confirmed as U.S. Attorney General. However, in a written response to questions from U.S. Senator Cory Booker made as a nominee, Attorney General Barr stated “I do not intend to go after parties who have complied with state law in reliance on the Cole Memo.” The DOJ under Mr. Barr did not take a formal position on federal enforcement of laws relating to cannabis.

Attorney General Merrick Garland, who was confirmed as U.S. Attorney General on March 10, 2021, has not provided a clear policy directive for the United States as it pertains to state-legal cannabis-related activities, and there can be no assurances that DOJ or other law enforcement authorities will not seek to vigorously enforce current U.S. federal laws.

One legislative safeguard for the medical cannabis industry, appended to federal appropriations legislation, remains in place.  Commonly referred to as the “Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment”, this so-called “rider” provision has been appended to the Consolidated Appropriations Acts since 2015.  Under the terms of the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer rider, the federal government is prohibited from using congressionally appropriated funds to enforce federal cannabis laws against regulated medical cannabis actors operating in compliance with state and local law. In December 2022, the omnibus spending bill passed including the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment, extending its application until September 30, 2023. There is no assurance that Congress will approve inclusion of a similar prohibition on DOJ spending in the appropriations bills for future years. In USA vs. McIntosh, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that this provision prohibits the DOJ from spending funds from relevant appropriations acts to prosecute individuals who engage in conduct permitted by state medical-use cannabis laws and who strictly comply with such laws. However, the Ninth Circuit’s opinion, which only applies in the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii and Idaho, also held that persons who do not strictly comply with all state laws and regulations regarding the distribution, possession and cultivation of medical-use cannabis have engaged in conduct that is unauthorized, and in such instances the DOJ may prosecute those individuals.

Furthermore, our leases do not prohibit cannabis cultivation for adult-use that is permissible under the state and local laws where our facilities are located. Consequently, certain of our tenants cultivate, process and/or dispense adult-use cannabis now (and may in the future) in our facilities that are permitted by such state and local laws, which may in turn subject the tenant, us and our properties to greater and/or different federal legal and other risks than exclusively medical-use cannabis facilities, including not providing protection under the above Congressional spending provision.

Federal prosecutors have significant discretion and no assurance can be given that the federal prosecutor in each judicial district where we purchase a property will not choose to strictly enforce the federal laws governing cannabis production, processing or distribution. Any change in the federal government’s enforcement posture with respect to state-licensed cultivation of cannabis, including the enforcement postures of individual federal prosecutors in judicial districts where we purchase properties, would result in our inability to execute our business plan, and we would likely suffer significant losses with respect to our investment in regulated cannabis facilities in the United States, which would adversely affect the trading price of our securities. Furthermore, following any such change in the federal government’s enforcement position, we could be subject to criminal prosecution, which could lead to imprisonment and/or the imposition of penalties, fines, or forfeiture. See Item 1A, “Risk Factors – Risks Relating to Regulation.”

16

Table of Contents

State Laws Applicable to the Regulated Cannabis Industry

In most states that have legalized cannabis in some form, the growing, processing and/or dispensing of cannabis generally requires that the operator obtain one or more licenses in accordance with applicable state requirements. In addition, many states regulate various aspects of the growing, processing and/or dispensing of cannabis. Local governments in some cases also impose rules and regulations on the manner of operating cannabis businesses. As a result, applicable state and local laws and regulations vary widely, including, but not limited to, regulations governing the medical cannabis program (such as the type of cannabis products permitted under the program, qualifications and registration of health professionals that may recommend treatment with medical cannabis, and the types of medical conditions that qualify for medical cannabis), product testing, the level of enforcement by state and local authorities on non-licensed cannabis operators, state and local taxation of regulated cannabis products, local municipality bans on operations and operator licensing processes and renewals. As a result of these and other factors, if our tenants default under their leases, we may not be able to find new tenants that can successfully engage in the cultivation, processing or dispensing of regulated cannabis on the properties.

There is no guarantee that state laws legalizing and regulating the sale and use of cannabis will not be repealed, amended or overturned, or that local governmental authorities will not limit the applicability of state laws within their respective jurisdictions. Unless and until the United States Congress amends or repeals the CSA with respect to medical and/or adult-use cannabis (and as to the timing or scope of any such potential amendment or repeal there can be no assurance), there is a significant risk that federal authorities may enforce current federal law. If the federal government begins to enforce federal laws relating to cannabis in states where the sale and use of cannabis is currently legal, or if existing applicable state laws are repealed or curtailed, our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects would be materially adversely affected.

Laws Applicable to Financial Services for the Regulated Cannabis Industry

All banks are subject to federal law, whether the bank is a national bank or state-chartered bank. At a minimum, all banks maintain federal deposit insurance which requires adherence to federal law. Violation of federal law could subject a bank to loss of its charter. Financial transactions involving proceeds generated by cannabis-related conduct can form the basis for prosecution under the federal money laundering statutes, unlicensed money transmitter statutes and the Bank Secrecy Act. For example, under the Bank Secrecy Act, banks must report to the federal government any suspected illegal activity, which would include any transaction associated with a cannabis-related business. These reports must be filed even though the business is operating in compliance with applicable state and local laws. Therefore, financial institutions that conduct transactions with money generated by cannabis-related conduct could face criminal liability under the Bank Secrecy Act for, among other things, failing to identify or report financial transactions that involve the proceeds of cannabis-related violations of the CSA.

Despite these laws, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) issued a memorandum on February 14, 2014 (the “FinCEN Memorandum”) outlining the pathways for financial institutions to bank state-sanctioned cannabis businesses in compliance with federal enforcement priorities. Concurrently with the FinCEN Memorandum, the DOJ issued supplemental guidance directing federal prosecutors to consider the federal enforcement priorities enumerated in the Cole Memo with respect to federal anti-money laundering, unlicensed money transmitter and Bank Secrecy Act offenses based on cannabis-related violations of the CSA. The FinCEN Memorandum sets forth extensive requirements for financial institutions to meet if they want to offer bank accounts to cannabis-related businesses and echoed the enforcement priorities of the Cole Memo. Under these guidelines, financial institutions must submit a Suspicious Activity Report (“SAR”) in connection with all cannabis-related banking activities by any client of such financial institution, in accordance with federal anti-money laundering laws. These cannabis-related SARs are divided into three categories – cannabis limited, cannabis priority, and cannabis terminated – based on the financial institution’s belief that the business in question follows state law, is operating outside of compliance with state law, or where the banking relationship has been terminated, respectively. This is a level of scrutiny that is far beyond what is expected of any normal banking relationship.

As a result, many banks are hesitant to offer any banking services to cannabis-related businesses, including opening bank accounts. While we currently maintain banking relationships, our inability to maintain those accounts or the lack of

17

Table of Contents

access to bank accounts or other banking services in the future, would make it difficult for us to operate our business, increase our operating costs, and pose additional operational, logistical and security challenges. Similarly, if our proposed tenants are unable to access banking services, they will not be able to enter into triple-net leasing arrangements with us, as our leases will require rent payments to be made by check or wire transfer.

The rescission of the Cole Memo has not yet affected the status of the FinCEN Memorandum, nor has the Department of the Treasury given any indication that it intends to rescind the FinCEN Memorandum itself. Although the FinCEN Memorandum remains intact, it is unclear whether the current administration will continue to follow the guidelines of the FinCEN Memorandum. The DOJ continues to have the right and power to prosecute crimes committed by banks and financial institutions, such as money laundering and violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, that occur in any state including states that have in some form legalized the sale of cannabis. Further, the conduct of the DOJ’s enforcement priorities could change for any number of reasons. A change in the DOJ’s priorities could result in the DOJ’s prosecuting banks and financial institutions for crimes that were not previously prosecuted.

In addition, for our tenants that are publicly traded companies, securities clearing firms may refuse to accept deposits of securities of those tenants, which may negatively impact the trading and valuations of such tenants and have a material adverse impact on our tenants’ ability to finance their operations and growth through the capital markets.

The increased uncertainty surrounding financial transactions related to cannabis activities may also result in financial institutions discontinuing services to the cannabis industry. See Item 1A, “Risk Factors – Risks Relating to Regulation.”

Agricultural Regulation

The properties that we acquire are used primarily for cultivation and production of regulated cannabis and are subject to the laws, ordinances and regulations of state, local and federal governments, including laws, ordinances and regulations involving land use and usage, water rights, treatment methods, disturbance, the environment, and eminent domain.

Each governmental jurisdiction has its own distinct laws, ordinances and regulations governing the use of agricultural lands. Many such laws, ordinances and regulations seek to regulate water usage and water runoff because water can be in limited supply, as is the case in certain locations where our properties are located. In addition, runoff from rain or from irrigation is governed by laws, ordinances and regulations from state, local and federal governments. Additionally, if any of the water used on or running off from our properties flows to any rivers, streams, ponds, the ocean or other waters, there may be specific laws, ordinances and regulations governing the amount of pollutants, including sediments, nutrients and pesticides, that such water may contain.

We believe that our existing properties have, and other properties that we acquire in the future will have, sources of water that provide sufficient amounts of water necessary for the current operations at each location. However, should the need arise for additional water from wells and/or surface water sources, we may be required to obtain additional permits or approvals or to make other required notices prior to developing or using such water sources. Permits for drilling water wells or withdrawing surface water may be required by federal, state and local governmental entities pursuant to laws, ordinances, regulations or other requirements, and such permits may be difficult to obtain due to drought, the limited supply of available water within the districts of the states in which our properties are located or other reasons.

In addition to the regulation of water usage and water runoff, state, local and federal governments also seek to regulate the type, quantity and method of use of chemicals and materials for growing crops, including fertilizers, pesticides and nutrient rich materials. Such regulations could include restricting or preventing the use of such chemicals and materials near residential housing or near water sources. Further, some regulations have strictly forbidden or significantly limited the use of certain chemicals and materials. Licenses, permits and approvals must be obtained from governmental authorities requiring such licenses, permits and approvals before chemicals and materials can be used at grow facilities. Reports on the usage of such chemicals and materials must be submitted pursuant to applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations and the terms of the specific licenses, permits and approvals. Failure to comply with laws,

18

Table of Contents

ordinances and regulations, to obtain required licenses, permits and approvals or to comply with the terms of such licenses, permits and approvals could result in fines, penalties and/or imprisonment.

The use of land for agricultural purposes in certain jurisdictions is also subject to regulations governing the protection of endangered species. When agricultural lands border, or are in close proximity to, national parks, protected natural habitats or wetlands, the agricultural operations on such properties must comply with laws, ordinances and regulations related to the use of chemicals and materials and avoid disturbance of habitats, wetlands or other protected areas.

Because properties we own may be used for growing cannabis, there may be other additional land use and zoning regulations at the state or local level that affect our properties that may not apply to other types of agricultural uses. For example, certain states in which our properties are located require stringent security systems in place at grow facilities, and require stringent procedures for disposal of waste materials.

As an owner of agricultural lands, we may be liable or responsible for the actions or inactions of our tenants with respect to these laws, regulations and ordinances.

Environmental Matters

Our properties and the operations thereon are subject to federal, state and local environmental laws, ordinances and regulations, including laws relating to water, air, solid wastes and hazardous substances. Our properties and the operations thereon are also subject to federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations and requirements related to the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act, as well as comparable state statutes relating to the health and safety of our employees and others working on our properties. Although we believe that we and our tenants are in material compliance with these requirements, there can be no assurance that we will not incur significant costs, civil and criminal penalties and liabilities, including those relating to claims for damages to persons, property or the environment resulting from operations at our properties. Furthermore, many of our properties have been repurposed for regulated cannabis operations, and historically were utilized for other purposes, including heavy industrial uses, which expose us to additional risks associated with historical releases of substances at the properties.

Real Estate Industry Regulation

Generally, the ownership and operation of real properties are subject to various laws, ordinances and regulations, including regulations relating to zoning, land use, water rights, wastewater, storm water runoff and lien sale rights and procedures. These laws, ordinances or regulations, such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response and Compensation Liability Act and its state analogs, or any changes to any such laws, ordinances or regulations, could result in or increase the potential liability for environmental conditions or circumstances existing, or created by tenants or others, on our properties. Laws related to upkeep, safety and taxation requirements may result in significant unanticipated expenditures, loss of our properties or other impairments to operations, any of which would adversely affect our cash flows from operating activities.

Changes to zoning, land use and other laws, ordinances and regulations may also prevent us from leasing a property for regulated cannabis cultivation, processing and/or dispensing in the future. For one of our properties located in San Bernardino, California, as of December 31, 2022, we were evaluating alternative non-cannabis uses for the property, due in part to changes in the zoning of the property that no longer allow for regulated cannabis cultivation and processing.

Our property management activities, to the extent we are required to engage in them due to lease defaults by tenants or vacancies on certain properties, will likely be subject to state real estate brokerage laws and regulations as determined by the particular real estate commission for each state.

Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Other Building Regulations

All of our properties are required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), which generally requires that buildings be made accessible to people with disabilities. Compliance with ADA requirements may require

19

Table of Contents

removal of access barriers, and noncompliance may result in imposition of fines by the U.S. government or an award of damages to private litigants, or both. The tenants to whom we lease space in our properties are generally obligated by law to comply with the ADA provisions, and typically under tenant leases are obligated to cover costs associated with compliance. We are required to operate the properties in compliance with fire and safety regulations, building codes and other land use regulations, as they may be adopted by governmental entities and become applicable to the properties.

Seasonality

Our business has not been, and we do not expect it to become subject to, material seasonal fluctuations.

Available Information

We make available to the public free of charge through our internet website our Definitive Proxy Statement, Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such reports with, or furnish such reports to, the SEC. Our internet website address is www.innovativeindustrialproperties.com. The SEC also maintains electronic versions of the Company’s reports on its website at www.sec.gov. You can also access on our website our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, Corporate Governance Guidelines, Audit Committee Charter, Compensation Committee Charter, and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Charter. The content of our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K or in any other report or document we file with the SEC, and any references to our website are intended to be inactive textual references only.

Human Capital

Our employees are our most valuable asset, and we believe we have an inclusive and engaging work environment, where each person is an integrated member of the team and is critical to our company’s continued success. We meet regularly as a full team, including throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, where each member is encouraged to actively participate in a wide range of topics relating to our company’s execution.

We are also committed to the health and safety of our employees. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we implemented a number of safety protocols to protect our employees, including protocols regarding social distancing and working remotely.

We believe that attracting, developing, engaging and retaining our team is an absolute priority. To that end, we believe we offer a highly competitive compensation (including salary, bonuses and equity) and benefits package for each member of our team, which include the following:

20

Table of Contents

We also coordinate periodic team and individual community giving activities (both in terms of hands-on volunteering and continued financial contributions), soliciting input from our employees regarding charitable organizations and community activities that they would like to support.

​

We are also proud to be an equal opportunity workplace and employer. We are committed to the principle of equal employment opportunity for all employees and to providing employees with an inclusive work environment free of discrimination and harassment. All employment decisions are based on qualifications, merit and business needs, without regard to race, color, creed, gender, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, pregnancy, age, marital status, registered domestic partner status, sexual orientation, gender identity, protected medical condition, genetic information, physical or mental disability, veteran status, or any other status protected by the laws or regulations in the locations where we operate.

​

ITEM IA. RISK FACTORS

Certain factors may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. You should consider carefully the risks and uncertainties described below, in addition to other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our consolidated financial statements and related notes. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties that we are unaware of, or that we currently believe are not material, may also become important factors that adversely affect our business. If any of the following risks actually occurs, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and future prospects could be materially and adversely affected. In that event, the trading price of our common stock could decline, and you could lose part or all of your investment.

Risk Factors Summary

The following is a summary of the principal risks and uncertainties that could adversely affect our business, cash flows, financial condition and/or results of operations, and these adverse impacts may be material. This summary is qualified in its entirety by reference to the more detailed descriptions of the risks and uncertainties included in this Item 1A below and you should read this summary together with those more detailed descriptions. These principal risk and uncertainties relate to, among other things:

Risks Related to Our Business

21

Table of Contents

Risks Related to Regulation

Risks Related to Financing Our Business

Risks Related to Our Organization and Structure

22

Table of Contents

Risks Related to Our Securities

Risks Related to Our Taxation as a REIT

General Risk Factors

​

Risks Related to Our Business

Many of our existing tenants are, and we expect that many of our future tenants will be, companies with limited histories of operations and may be unable to pay rent with funds from operations or at all, which could adversely affect our cash available to make distributions to our stockholders or otherwise impair the value of our common stock.

Single tenants currently occupy our properties generally, and we expect that single tenants will occupy our properties that we acquire in the future. Therefore, the success of our investments will be materially dependent on the financial stability of these tenants. We rely on our management team to perform due diligence investigations of our potential tenants, related guarantors and their properties, operations and prospects, of which there is generally little or no publicly available operating and financial information. We may not learn all of the material information we need to know regarding these businesses through our investigations, and these businesses are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to regulatory risks and the rapidly evolving market dynamics of each state’s regulated cannabis program. As a result, it is possible that we could enter into a sale-leaseback arrangement with tenants or otherwise lease properties to tenants that ultimately are unable to pay rent to us, which could adversely impact our cash available for distributions.

23

Table of Contents

Many of our existing tenants are, and we expect that many of our future tenants will be, companies with limited histories of operations that are not profitable when they enter triple-net leasing arrangements with us and therefore, may be unable to pay rent with funds from operations. Many of our current tenants are not profitable and have experienced losses since inception, or have been profitable for only a short period of time. As a result, many of our current tenants have made, and we expect that many of our future tenants will make, initial rent payments to us from proceeds from the sale of the property, in the case of sale-leaseback transactions, or other cash on hand, including cash received from debt financings.

In addition, in general, our tenants are more vulnerable to adverse conditions resulting from federal and state regulations affecting their businesses or industries or other changes in the marketplace for their products, and have limited access to traditional forms of financing. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, our tenants were generally not able to access federal assistance programs that were available to companies in other industries, due to cannabis being a Schedule 1 controlled substance under the CSA. The success of our tenants will also heavily depend on the growth and development of the state markets in which the tenants operate, many of which have a very limited history or are still in the stages of establishing the regulatory framework. For example, in California, the illicit market for cannabis remains a much larger portion of overall sales in the state according to Global Go Analytics, and state and local authorities have assessed significant taxes on regulated cannabis products, both of which have had the impact of significantly limiting the growth and profitability for operators in the state’s regulated cannabis market. In recent months, pricing for regulated cannabis products has dropped significantly, driven in part by the lack of effective enforcement on the illicit market, while input costs, including labor, supplies and construction materials, have increased significantly as a result of the broader higher inflationary environment.

In our evaluation of our existing leases with tenants at our properties, we record associated revenue on a cash basis due to the uncertainty of collectability of lease payments from tenants due to the U.S. federal regulatory uncertainty surrounding the regulated cannabis industry and our tenants’ limited operating history (for more information, see Note 2 “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies and Procedures and Recent Accounting Pronouncements – Revenue Recognition” in our consolidated financial statements included in this report).

Some of our tenants may be subject to significant debt obligations and may rely on debt financing to make rent payments to us. Tenants that are subject to significant debt obligations may be unable to make their rent payments if there are adverse changes in their business plans or prospects, the regulatory environment in which they operate or in general economic conditions. In addition, the payment of rent and debt service may reduce the working capital available to tenants for the start-up phase of their business. Furthermore, we may be unable to monitor and evaluate tenant credit quality on an on-going basis.

According to Viridian, total equity and debt capital raising for public and private cannabis companies in North America decreased by more than 65% in 2022 versus 2021. Even more pronounced, total capital raised for the U.S. regulated cannabis cultivation and retail sector was down over 70% in 2022 versus 2021, with equity capital raised in the sector down over 96% and no equity deal in 2022 raising more than $25 million, according to Viridian.

Any lease payment defaults by a tenant could adversely affect our cash flows and cause us to reduce the amount of distributions to stockholders. In the event of a default by a tenant, we may also experience delays in enforcing our rights as landlord and may incur substantial costs in protecting our investment and re-leasing our property as operators of regulated cannabis cultivation and production facilities are generally subject to extensive state licensing requirements, including limited licenses in certain states. In addition, applicable state licensing authorities may have little experience re-leasing a cannabis property, which may extend the delays we experience in re-leasing a property. Furthermore, we will not operate any of the facilities that we purchase.

In July 2022, Kings Garden, a tenant of ours at six properties that we own in southern California, defaulted on its obligations to pay rent.

In November 2022, Parallel defaulted on its obligations to pay rent at one of our properties in Pennsylvania, and Green Peak defaulted on its obligations to pay rent at one our properties in Michigan. In February 2023, Parallel defaulted on its obligations to pay rent at one of our properties in Texas. See Part I, Item 3. Legal Proceedings and Note

24

Table of Contents

11 “Commitments and Contingencies — Litigation” to our consolidated financial statements for more information regarding Kings Garden, Parallel and Green Peak.

Because we lease our properties to a limited number of tenants, and to the extent we depend on a limited number of tenants in the future, the inability of any single tenant to make its lease payments could adversely affect our business and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

​

As of December 31, 2022, we owned 110 properties. Five of our tenants, PharmaCann (at eleven of our properties), Parallel (at four of our properties), Ascend (at four of our properties), Green Thumb (at three of our properties) and Trulieve (at six of our properties), represented approximately 14%, 10%, 9%, 7% and 7%, respectively, of our rental revenues (including tenant reimbursements) for the twelve months ended December 31, 2022. Lease payment defaults by any of our tenants or a significant decline in the value of any single property would materially adversely affect our business, financial position and results of operations, including our ability to make distributions to our stockholders. Our lack of diversification also increases the potential that a single underperforming investment or tenant could have a material adverse effect on our cash flows and the price we could realize from the sale of our properties. Any adverse change in the financial condition of any of our tenants, including but not limited to the state cannabis markets not developing and growing in ways that we or our tenants projected, or any adverse change in the political climate regarding cannabis where our properties are located, would subject us to a significant risk of loss.

In addition, failure by any of our tenants to comply with the terms of its lease agreement with us could require us to find another lessee for the applicable property. We may experience delays in enforcing our rights as landlord and may incur substantial costs in protecting our investment and re-leasing that property. Furthermore, we cannot assure you that we will be able to re-lease that property for the rent we currently receive, or at all, or that a lease termination would not result in our having to sell the property at a loss. The result of any of the foregoing risks could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

In July 2022, Kings Garden, a tenant of ours at six properties that we own in southern California, defaulted on its obligations to pay rent.

In November 2022, Parallel defaulted on its obligations to pay rent at one of our properties in Pennsylvania, and Green Peak defaulted on its obligations to pay rent at one our properties in Michigan. In February 2023, Parallel defaulted on its obligations to pay rent at one of our properties in Texas. See Part I, Item 3. Legal Proceedings and Note 11 “Commitments and Contingencies — Litigation” to our consolidated financial statements for more information regarding Kings Garden, Parallel and Green Peak.

Because our real estate investments consist of primarily industrial and greenhouse properties suitable for cultivation and production of cannabis, our rental revenues are significantly influenced by demand for these facilities generally, and a decrease in such demand would likely have a greater adverse effect on our rental revenues than if we owned a more diversified real estate portfolio.

Because our portfolio of properties primarily consists of industrial and greenhouse properties used in the regulated cannabis industry, we are subject to risks inherent in investments in a single industry. A decrease in the demand for cannabis cultivation and processing facilities would have a greater adverse effect on our rental revenues than if we owned a more diversified real estate portfolio. Demand for cannabis cultivation and processing facilities has been and could be adversely affected by changes in current favorable state or local laws relating to cultivation and production of cannabis or any change in the federal government’s current enforcement posture with respect to state-licensed cannabis operations, among others, including but not limited to changes to local zoning and other laws that no longer allow a facility to be utilized for regulated cannabis activities. To the extent that any of these conditions occur, they are likely to affect demand and market rents for cannabis cultivation and processing facilities, which could cause a decrease in our rental revenue. Any such decrease could impair our ability to make distributions to you. Other than with respect to our property located in San Bernardino, California, we do not currently and do not expect in the future to invest in other real estate or businesses to hedge against the risk that industry trends might decrease the profitability of our facilities leased for cannabis operations.

25

Table of Contents

Our real estate investments consist of primarily industrial and greenhouse properties suitable for cultivation and production of cannabis, which may be difficult to sell or re-lease upon tenant defaults or lease terminations, either of which would adversely affect returns to stockholders.

While our business objectives consist of principally acquiring and deriving rental income from industrial and greenhouse properties used in the regulated cannabis industry, we expect that at times we will deem it appropriate or desirable to sell or otherwise dispose of certain properties we own. These types of properties are relatively illiquid compared to other types of real estate and financial assets. This illiquidity could limit our ability to quickly dispose of properties in response to changes in regulatory, economic or other conditions. Therefore, our ability at any time to sell assets may be restricted and this lack of liquidity may limit our ability to make changes to our portfolio promptly, which could materially and adversely affect our financial performance. We cannot predict the various market conditions affecting the properties that we expect to acquire that will exist in the future. Due to the uncertainty of regulatory and market conditions which may affect the future disposition of the real estate assets we expect to acquire, we cannot assure you that we will be able to sell these assets at a profit in the future. Accordingly, the extent to which we will realize potential appreciation (or depreciation) on the real estate investments we have acquired and expect to acquire will depend upon regulatory and other market conditions. In addition, in order to maintain our REIT status, we may not be able to sell properties when we would otherwise choose to do so, due to market conditions or changes in our strategic plan.

Furthermore, we may be required to make expenditures to correct defects or to make improvements before a property can be sold and we cannot assure you that we will have funds available to correct such defects or to make such improvements. With these kinds of properties, if the current lease is terminated or not renewed, we may be required to make expenditures and rent concessions in order to lease the property to another tenant.

In addition, in the event we are forced to sell or re-lease the property, we may have difficulty finding qualified purchasers who are willing to buy the property or tenants who are willing to lease the property on terms that we expect, or at all. As our properties are concentrated in the regulated cannabis industry, a shift in property preferences by regulated cannabis operators, including but not limited to changing preferences regarding location and types of improvements, could have a significant negative impact on the desirability of our properties to prospective tenants when we need to re-lease them, in addition to other challenges, such as obtaining the necessary state and local authorizations for a new tenant to commence operations at the property. These and other limitations may affect our ability to sell or re-lease properties, which may adversely affect returns to our stockholders. Certain regulated cannabis operators have recently announced that they are consolidating operations or shuttering certain operations to reduce costs, which if prolonged, could have a material negative impact on operators’ demand for regulated cannabis facilities, including our existing tenants.

In July 2022, Kings Garden, a tenant of ours at six properties that we own in southern California, defaulted on its obligations to pay rent. In November 2022, Parallel defaulted on its obligations to pay rent at one of our properties in Pennsylvania, and Green Peak defaulted on its obligations to pay rent at one our properties in Michigan. In February 2023, Parallel defaulted on its obligations to pay rent at one of our properties in Texas. See Part I, Item 3. Legal Proceedings and Note 11 “Commitments and Contingencies — Litigation” to our consolidated financial statements for more information regarding Kings Garden, Parallel and Green Peak.

We have a limited operating history, and may not be able to continue to operate our business successfully or generate sufficient cash flow to sustain distributions to our stockholders.

We completed our initial public offering and commenced real estate operations with the acquisition of our first property in December 2016, and have a limited operating history. We are subject to many of the business risks and uncertainties associated with any new business enterprise. Furthermore, our properties are concentrated in the regulated cannabis industry, an industry in its very early stages of development, and we cannot predict how tenant demand and competition for these properties will change over time. We cannot assure you that we will be able to operate our business successfully or profitably or find additional suitable investments. Our ability to provide attractive risk-adjusted returns to our stockholders over the long term is dependent on our ability both to generate sufficient cash flow to pay an attractive dividend and to achieve capital appreciation, and we cannot assure you we will do either. There can be no assurance that

26

Table of Contents

we will be able to continue to generate sufficient revenue from operations to pay our operating expenses and make distributions to stockholders. The results of our operations and the execution on our business plan depend on several factors, including the availability of additional opportunities for investment, the performance of our existing properties and tenants, the evolution of tenant demand for regulated cannabis facilities, competition, the evolution of alternative capital sources for potential tenants, the availability of adequate equity and debt financing, the federal and state regulatory environment relating to the regulated cannabis industry, conditions in the financial markets and economic conditions.

The assets we acquire may be subject to impairment charges.

We periodically evaluate the real estate investments we acquire and other assets for impairment indicators. The judgment regarding the existence of impairment indicators is based upon factors such as market conditions, tenant performance and legal structure. For example, the termination of a lease by a tenant may lead to an impairment charge. If we determine that an impairment has occurred, we would be required to make an adjustment to the net carrying value of the asset which could have an adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which the impairment charge is recorded.

In July 2022, Kings Garden, a tenant of ours at six properties that we own in southern California, defaulted on its obligations to pay rent. In November 2022, Parallel defaulted on its obligations to pay rent at one of our properties in Pennsylvania, and Green Peak defaulted on its obligations to pay rent at one of our properties in Michigan. In February 2023, Parallel defaulted on its obligations to pay rent at one of our properties in Texas. See Part I, Item 3. Legal Proceedings and Note 11 “Commitments and Contingencies — Litigation” to our consolidated financial statements for more information regarding Kings Garden, Parallel and Green Peak. While we have not determined that an impairment has occurred with respect to these properties, as we periodically evaluate these and other properties, we may be required to make an adjustment to the net carrying value of one or more of these properties in the future.

We have identified a material weakness in our system of internal controls pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. If not remediated, this material weakness could result in material misstatements in our consolidated financial statements. We may be unable to develop, implement and maintain appropriate controls in future periods.

​

As previously disclosed in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2022, our management identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected and corrected on a timely basis. Management has concluded that, because of this material weakness, our internal control over financial reporting was not effective as of December 31, 2022. These operational deficiencies related to the Company’s reviews and approvals of requests for funding disbursements by the Company for tenant improvements at the Company’s properties previously leased to Kings Garden. As a result of the material weakness, the Company’s management, under the supervision of the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors and with participation of the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, concluded that the Company’s internal control over financial reporting was not effective as of December 31, 2022.

Although we are working to remedy the ineffectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, there can be no assurance as to when the remediation plan will be fully developed and implemented. Until our remediation plan is fully implemented, our management will continue to devote significant time, attention and financial resources to these efforts. If we do not complete our remediation in a timely fashion, or at all, or if our remediation plan is inadequate, there will continue to be an increased risk that our future consolidated financial statements could contain errors that will be undetected. Further and continued determinations that there are one or more material weaknesses in the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting could also reduce our ability to obtain financing or could increase the cost of any financing we obtain and require additional expenditures of both money and our management’s time to comply with applicable requirements. For more information relating to the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, the material weakness that existed as of December 31, 2022 and the remediation activities undertaken by us, see Part II, Item 9A, “Controls and Procedures” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

27

Table of Contents

​

We face significant risks associated with the development and redevelopment of properties that we acquire.

In many instances, we engage in development or redevelopment of properties that we acquire. Development and redevelopment activities entail risks that could adversely impact our financial condition and results of operations, including:

The realization of any of the risks above or other delays in development and redevelopment activities at a property may also materially adversely impact our tenant’s ability to commence, continue or expand its operations, which may result in that tenant defaulting on its rent obligations to us. As of February 28, 2023, we had properties consisting of an aggregate of approximately 1.6 million rentable square feet under development or redevelopment, and we had committed

28

Table of Contents

to provide construction funding and fund tenant improvements at our properties in the future totaling up to approximately $131.8 million.

For one of our properties located in San Bernardino, California, as of December 31, 2022, we are evaluating alternative non-cannabis uses for the property, due in part to changes in the zoning of the property that no longer allow for regulated cannabis cultivation and processing.

In November 2022, Green Peak defaulted on its obligations to pay rent at one of our properties in Michigan, which was under redevelopment, and in February 2023, Parallel defaulted on its obligations to pay rent at one of our properties in Texas, which was under development.

Ongoing inflation for construction and labor costs, labor shortages and global supply chain issues also continue to adversely impact costs and timing for completion of our development and redevelopment projects, which are resulting in cost overruns and delays in commencing operations on certain projects.

We are currently subject to securities lawsuits and we may be subject to similar or other litigation in the future, which may divert management’s attention and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

A purported securities class action lawsuit has been filed against us and certain of our executive officers alleging that the Company made false or misleading statements regarding its business. According to the filed complaint, the plaintiff is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs and other relief on behalf of the putative classes of all persons who acquired shares of the Company’s common stock between August 7, 2020 and August 4, 2022. Derivative lawsuits also have been filed against us and certain of our officers and directors asserting putative derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets against our directors and certain of our officers.  According to the filed complaint, the plaintiffs are seeking declaratory relief, direction to reform and improve corporate governance and internal procedures, and an undetermined amount of damages, restitution, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. See Note 11 “Commitments and Contingencies” for a full description of these actions.

We will continue to incur legal fees in connection with these pending cases, including expenses for the reimbursement of legal fees of our officers and directors under indemnification obligations. The expense of continuing to defend such litigation may be significant. We intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously, but there can be no assurance that we will be successful in any defense. If any of the lawsuits are adversely decided, we may be liable for significant damages directly or under our indemnification obligations, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and cash flows. Further, the amount of time that will be required to resolve these lawsuits is unpredictable and these actions may divert management's attention from the day-to-day operations of our business, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and cash flows.

We cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits and we may be subject to other similar securities litigation in the future. Monitoring and defending against legal actions, whether or not meritorious, is time-consuming for our management and detracts from our ability to fully focus our internal resources on our business activities. In addition, we may incur substantial legal fees and costs in connection with litigation. Although we have insurance, coverage could be denied or prove to be insufficient. We are not currently able to estimate the possible cost to us from the currently pending lawsuits, and we cannot be certain how long it may take to resolve these matters or the possible amount of any damages that we may be required to pay. We have not established any reserves for any potential liability relating to these or future lawsuits. It is possible that we could, in the future, incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims for monetary damages. A decision adverse to our interests on these actions could result in the payment of substantial damages and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, the uncertainty of the currently pending lawsuits could lead to volatility in our stock price. The ultimate outcome of litigation could have a material adverse effect on our business and the trading price for our securities.

​

29

Table of Contents

Inflation may adversely affect our business and our tenants’ financial condition and results of operations.

Increased inflation could have a more pronounced negative impact on any variable rate debt we incur in the future and on our results of operations. We also enter into leases that generally provide for fixed increases in rent.  During times when inflation is greater than increases in rent as provided for in our leases, rent increases may not keep up with the rate of inflation. Likewise, even though net leases reduce our exposure to rising property expenses due to inflation, substantial inflationary pressures and increased costs may have an adverse impact on our tenants if increases in their operating expenses exceed increases in their revenues, which may adversely affect our tenants’ ability to pay rent. Substantial inflation in the cost of construction materials and labor may also adversely impact our and our tenants’ ability to complete building projects on budget and on time, which may also materially adversely impact our tenants’ ability to commence operations of facilities and consequently our tenants’ ability to pay rent.

​

Competition for the acquisition of properties suitable for the retail sale, cultivation or production of regulated cannabis and alternative financing sources for licensed operators may impede our ability to make acquisitions or increase the cost of these acquisitions, which could adversely affect our operating results and financial condition.

We compete for the acquisition of properties suitable for the retail sale, cultivation or production of regulated cannabis with other entities engaged in retail, agricultural and real estate investment activities, including corporate agriculture companies, cultivators and producers of cannabis, private equity investors, and other real estate investors (including public and private REITs). These competitors may prevent us from acquiring desirable properties, may cause an increase in the price we must pay for properties or may result in us having to lease our properties on less favorable terms than we expect. Our competitors may have greater financial and operational resources than we do and may be willing to pay more for certain assets or may be willing to accept more risk than we believe can be prudently managed. In particular, larger companies may enjoy significant competitive advantages that result from, among other things, a lower cost of capital and enhanced operating efficiencies. Our competitors may also adopt transaction structures similar to ours, which would decrease our competitive advantage in offering flexible transaction terms. In addition, due to a number of factors, including but not limited to potential greater clarity of the laws and regulations governing cannabis by state and federal governments, the number of entities and the amount of funds competing for suitable investment properties may increase, resulting in increased demand and increased prices paid for these properties. If we pay higher prices for properties or enter into leases for such properties on less favorable terms than we expect, our profitability and ability to generate cash flow and make distributions to our stockholders may decrease.

We also compete as a provider of capital to regulated cannabis operators with alternative financing sources to these companies, including both equity and debt financing alternatives. For example, many larger, publicly traded multi-state cannabis operators are able to raise significant capital through public equity offerings, in addition to access to significant debt financing options. Furthermore, changes in federal regulations pertaining to cannabis could also lead to increased access to U.S. capital markets for our competitors and for regulated cannabis operators (including but not limited to access to the Nasdaq Stock Market and/or the New York Stock Exchange).

Increased competition for properties as a result of greater clarity of the federal regulatory environment may also preclude us from acquiring those properties that would generate attractive returns to us. If any of the proposed bills in Congress focused on the regulated cannabis industry became law, there could be further increased competition for the acquisition of properties that can be leased to licensed cannabis operators, consolidation of cannabis cultivation facilities for more cost efficient, larger scale production and manufacturing may occur (including consolidation that may occur as a result of authorization of interstate commerce in cannabis), and such operators would have greater access to alternative financing sources with lower costs of capital. These factors may reduce the number of operators that wish to enter into lease transactions with us or renew leases with us, or may result in us having to enter into leases on less favorable terms with tenants, each of which may significantly adversely impact our profitability and ability to generate cash flow and make distributions to our stockholders.

30

Table of Contents

Our growth will depend upon future acquisitions of regulated cannabis facilities, and we may be unable to consummate acquisitions on advantageous terms.

Our growth strategy is focused on the acquisition of specialized industrial real estate assets on favorable terms as opportunities arise. Our ability to acquire these real estate assets on favorable terms is subject to the following risks:

Our failure to consummate acquisitions on advantageous terms without substantial expense or delay would impede our growth and negatively affect our results of operations and our ability to generate cash flow and make distributions to our stockholders.

There may only be a limited number of regulated cannabis facilities operated by suitable tenants available for us to acquire, which could adversely affect the return on our common stock.

We target regulated cannabis facilities for acquisition and leasing to licensed operators under triple-net lease agreements. In light of the current regulatory landscape regarding regulated cannabis, including but not limited to, the rigorous state licensing processes, limits on the number of licenses granted in certain states and in counties within such states, zoning regulations related to regulated cannabis facilities, the inability of potential tenants to open bank accounts necessary to pay rent and other expenses and the ever-changing federal and state regulatory landscape, we may have only a limited number of regulated cannabis facilities available to purchase that are operated by licensees that we believe would be suitable tenants. These tenants may also have increased access to alternative equity and debt financing sources over time, which may limit our ability to negotiate leasing arrangements that meet our investment criteria. Our inability to locate suitable investment properties and tenants would have a material adverse effect on our ability to generate cash flow and make distributions to our stockholders.

Our and our tenants’ businesses may be materially and adversely affected by the impact of global pandemics.

We cannot predict the extent to which global pandemics may impact our business and operating results and those of our tenants, but their impact may include the following:

​

31

Table of Contents

The extent to which pandemics impact our operations and those of our tenants will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence, including the scope, severity and duration of the pandemic, the actions taken to contain the outbreak or mitigate its impact, and the extent of the direct and indirect economic effects of the pandemic and containment measures, among others.

Our tenants may be unable to renew or otherwise maintain their licenses or other requisite authorizations for their cannabis operations, which may result in such tenants not being able to operate their businesses and defaulting on their lease payments to us.

Most states where we own properties issue licenses for cannabis operations for a limited period. We rely on our tenants to renew or otherwise maintain the requisite state and local cannabis licenses and other authorizations on a continuous basis. If one or more of our tenants are unable to renew or otherwise maintain its licenses or other state and

32

Table of Contents

local authorizations necessary to continue its cannabis operations, such tenants may default on their lease payments to us.

Any such noncompliance by our tenants of state and local laws, rules and regulations may also subject us, as the owner of such properties, to potential penalties, fines or other liabilities.

Any lease payment defaults by a tenant or additional liability on us could adversely affect our cash flows and cause us to reduce the amount of distributions to stockholders. In the event of a default by a tenant, we may also experience delays in enforcing our rights as landlord and may incur substantial costs in protecting our investment and re-leasing our property as operators of cannabis cultivation and production facilities are generally subject to extensive state licensing requirements, including required state and local authorizations for a new tenant to take over operations at a facility.

In July 2022, Kings Garden, a tenant of ours at six properties that we own in southern California, defaulted on its obligations to pay rent. In November 2022, Parallel defaulted on its obligations to pay rent at one of our properties in Pennsylvania, and Green Peak defaulted on its obligations to pay rent at one our properties in Michigan. In February 2023, Parallel defaulted on its obligations to pay rent at one of our properties in Texas. See Part I, Item 3. Legal Proceedings and Note 11 “Commitments and Contingencies — Litigation” to our consolidated financial statements for more information regarding Kings Garden, Parallel and Green Peak.

We acquired our properties, and expect to acquire other properties, “as-is,” which increases the risk of an investment that requires us to remedy defects or costs without recourse to the prior owner.

We acquired our properties, and expect to acquire other real estate properties, “as is” with only limited representations and warranties from the property seller regarding matters affecting the condition, use and ownership of the property. There may also be environmental conditions associated with properties we acquire of which we are unaware despite our diligence efforts or that we have identified during diligence, including with respect to historical heavy industrial uses of the properties. In particular, cannabis facilities may present environmental concerns of which we are not currently aware. If environmental contamination exists on properties we acquire or develops after acquisition, we could become subject to liability for the contamination. As a result, if defects in the property (including any building on the property) or other matters adversely affecting the property are discovered, including but not limited to environmental matters, we may not be able to pursue a claim for any or all damages against the property seller. Such a situation could harm our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

Our properties are, and are expected to continue to be, geographically concentrated in states that permit licensed cannabis operations, and we will be subject to social, political and economic risks of doing business in these states and any other state in which we may own property.

As of February 28, 2023, we owned properties in 19 states, and we expect that the properties that we acquire will be geographically concentrated in these states and other states that have established cannabis programs. See “Geographic Concentration” under Item 1, “Business” for a table of properties owned by us and organized by state as of December 31, 2022. Circumstances and developments related to operations in these markets that could negatively affect our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations include, but are not limited to, the following factors:

33

Table of Contents

Some of our tenants could be susceptible to bankruptcy, which would affect our ability to generate rents from them and therefore negatively affect our results of operations.

In addition to the risk of tenants being unable to make regular rent payments, certain of our tenants may depend on debt, which could make them especially susceptible to bankruptcy in the event that their cash flows are insufficient to satisfy their debt. Because cannabis remains illegal under federal law, there is no assurance that federal bankruptcy courts will provide relief for parties who engage in cannabis-related businesses. Recent bankruptcy court rulings have denied bankruptcy relief for certain cannabis businesses on the basis that businesses cannot violate federal law and then claim the benefits of federal bankruptcy for such activity and on the basis that courts cannot ask a bankruptcy trustee to take possession of, and distribute cannabis assets, as such action would violate the CSA. Any inability of our tenants to seek bankruptcy protection may impact their ability to secure financing for their operations and prevent our tenants from utilizing the benefits of reorganization of their businesses under bankruptcy protection to operate in a financially sustainable way, thereby reducing the probability that such a tenant would be able to honor its lease obligations with us.

Generally, under bankruptcy law, a tenant who is the subject of bankruptcy proceedings may continue (“assume”) or give up (“reject”) any unexpired lease of non-residential real property. If a bankrupt tenant decides to give up (reject) a lease, any claim for breach of the lease is treated as a general unsecured claim in the tenant’s bankruptcy case, subject to certain exceptions for collateral and guarantees. In the event one of our tenants is permitted to seek bankruptcy protection in the U.S., our general unsecured claim would likely be capped at the amount the tenant owed us for unpaid rent prior to the bankruptcy unrelated to the termination, plus the greater of one year of lease payments or 15% of the lease payments payable under the remaining term of the lease, but in no case more than three years of lease payments. In addition to the cap on our damages for breach of the lease, even if our claim is timely submitted to the bankruptcy court, there is no guaranty that the tenant’s bankruptcy estate would have sufficient funds to satisfy the claims of general unsecured creditors. Finally, a bankruptcy court could re-characterize a net lease transaction as a disguised secured lending transaction. If that were to occur, we would not be treated as the owner of the property, but might have additional rights as a secured creditor. This would mean our claim in bankruptcy court could be limited to the amount we paid for the property, which could adversely impact our financial condition. Any bankruptcy, if allowed, of one of our tenants would result in a loss of lease payments to us, as well as an increase in our costs to carry the property.

Our tenants may be subject to Section 280E of the Code because of the nature of their business activities, which could have an adverse impact on their financial condition due to a disallowance of certain tax deductions.

Section 280E of the Code provides that, with respect to any taxpayer, no deduction or credit is allowed for expenses incurred during a taxable year “in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business (or the activities which comprise such trade or business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of Schedule I and II of the CSA) which is prohibited by federal law or the law of any state in which such trade or business is conducted.” Because cannabis is a Schedule I controlled substance under the CSA, Section 280E by its terms applies to the purchase and sale of cannabis products. Our tenants are engaged in the cultivation, processing and sale of cannabis and cannabis-related products, and therefore may be subject to Section 280E. Application of the provisions of Section 280E to our tenants would result in the disallowance of certain tax deductions, including for depreciation or interest expense, which could have an adverse impact on their respective financial condition and ability to make lease payments to us. Any lease payment defaults by a tenant could adversely affect our results of operations and cash flows, and cause us to reduce the amount of distributions to our stockholders.

34

Table of Contents

We have acquired and may continue to acquire cannabis retail stores and dispensaries and enter into leases with licensed operators for those properties, which present additional risks and challenges in comparison to properties for the cultivation and production of cannabis.

We have acquired and may continue to acquire cannabis retail stores and dispensaries and enter into leases with licensed operators for those locations. Cannabis retail stores and dispensaries entail risks that could adversely impact our financial condition and results of operations, and that are in addition to risks associated with regulated cannabis cultivation and processing facilities, including but not limited to:

The realization of any of the risks above, among others, with respect to one or more of our properties or tenants could have a material adverse impact on our business.

We are exposed to the potential impacts of future climate change, which may result in unanticipated losses that could affect our business and financial condition.

We are exposed to potential physical risks from possible future changes in climate. Our properties may be exposed to catastrophic weather events, such as severe storms, hurricanes, fires, floods or droughts, in addition to changes in temperature and air quality. If the frequency of extreme weather events increases, our exposure to these events could increase. We may also be exposed to regulatory risks related to climate change, including regulations seeking to limit greenhouse gas emissions and reduce water usage. We may also be adversely impacted by potential impacts to the supply chain or stricter energy efficiency standards or greenhouse gas regulations for commercial real estate. We cannot give any assurance that other such conditions do not exist or may not arise in the future. The potential impacts of future climate change on our properties could adversely affect our ability to lease or sell such properties or to borrow using such properties as collateral.

Liability for uninsured losses could adversely affect our financial condition.

While the terms of our leases with our tenants generally require property and casualty insurance, losses from disaster-type occurrences, such as earthquakes, hurricanes, floods and weather-related disasters, and other types of insurance, such as landlord’s rental loss insurance, may be either uninsurable or not insurable on economically viable terms, due in part to our properties’ locations, construction types and concentration on the regulated cannabis industry. Should an uninsured loss occur, we could lose our capital investment or anticipated profits and cash flows from one or more properties.

35

Table of Contents

If our properties’ access to adequate water and power supplies is interrupted, it could harm our ability to lease the properties for cannabis cultivation and production, thereby adversely affecting our ability to generate returns on our properties.

In order to lease the properties that we acquire, these properties require access to sufficient water and power to make them suitable for the cultivation and production of cannabis. Although we expect to acquire properties with sufficient access to water, should the need arise for additional wells from which to obtain water, we would be required to obtain permits prior to drilling such wells. Permits for drilling water wells are required by state and county regulations, and such permits may be difficult to obtain due to the limited supply of water in areas where we acquire properties. Similarly, our properties may be subject to governmental regulations relating to the quality and disposition of rainwater runoff or other water to be used for irrigation. In such case, we could incur costs necessary in order to retain this water. If we are unable to obtain or maintain sufficient water supply for our properties, our ability to lease them for the cultivation and production of cannabis would be seriously impaired, which would have a material adverse impact on the value of our assets and our results of operations.

Historically, states that have legalized cannabis cultivation have typically required that such cultivation take place indoors. Indoor cultivation of cannabis requires significant power for growing lights and ventilation and air conditioning to remove the hot air generated by the growing lights. While outdoor cultivation is gaining acceptance in many states with favorable climates for such growth, we expect that most of our properties will continue to utilize indoor cultivation methods. Any extended interruption of the power supply to our properties, particularly those using indoor cultivation methods, would likely harm our tenants’ crops and processing capabilities, which could result in their inability to make lease payments to us for our properties. Any lease payment defaults by a tenant could adversely affect our cash flows and cause us to reduce the amount of distributions to stockholders.

Due to our involvement in the regulated cannabis industry, we may have a difficult time obtaining the various insurance policies that are desired to operate our business, which may expose us to additional risks and financial liabilities.

Insurance that is otherwise readily available, such as workers’ compensation, general liability and directors’ and officers’ insurance, is more difficult for us to find and more expensive, because we lease our properties to companies in the regulated cannabis industry. There are no guarantees that we will be able to find such insurance in the future, or that the cost will be affordable to us. If we are forced to go without such insurance or with less insurance than we would prefer, it may prevent us from entering into certain business sectors, may inhibit our growth, and may expose us to additional risk and financial liabilities.

Construction loans involve an increased risk of loss and other risks that are different from owning and leasing properties.

In June 2021, we executed a construction loan agreement with a developer, pursuant to which we agreed to make available up to $18.5 million for the development of a regulated cannabis cultivation and processing facility in California. In January 2023, we amended our construction loan agreement to provide up to an additional $4.5 million for the development as a result of costs incurred by the developer that were in excess of the original budget, making our total potential investment in the project $23.0 million. We may invest in other such loans in the future. Construction loans involve an increased risk of loss and other risks that are different from owning and leasing properties, including the following risks:

36

Table of Contents

If any one of these risks were to materialize with respect to one or more construction loans, our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow, and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders could be materially and adversely affected.

​

We may purchase properties subject to ground leases or enter into other transactions involving ground leases that expose us to the loss of such properties upon breach or termination of the ground leases.

A ground lease agreement permits a tenant to develop and/or operate a land parcel (property) during the lease period, after which the land parcel and all improvements revert back to the property owner. Under a ground lease, property improvements are owned by the property owner unless an exception is created and all relevant taxes incurred during the lease period are paid for by the tenant. Ground leases typically have a long duration generally ranging from 50 to 99 years with additional extension options. As a lessee under a ground lease, we would be exposed to the possibility of losing the property upon termination, or an earlier breach by us, of the ground lease, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, our ability to make distributions to our stockholders and the trading price of our common stock.

Risks Related to Regulation

Cannabis remains illegal under federal law, and therefore, strict enforcement of federal laws regarding cannabis would likely result in our inability and the inability of our tenants to execute our respective business plans.

Cannabis is a Schedule I controlled substance under the CSA. Even in those jurisdictions in which cannabis has been legalized at the state level, the possession, distribution, cultivation, manufacture and use of cannabis all remain violations of federal law that are punishable by imprisonment, substantial fines and forfeiture. Moreover, individuals and entities may violate federal law if they intentionally aid and abet another in violating these federal controlled substance laws, or conspire with another to violate them. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Coop. and Gonzales v. Raich that it is the federal government that has the right to regulate and criminalize the sale, possession and use of cannabis, even for medical purposes. We would likely be unable to execute our business plan if the federal government were to strictly enforce federal law regarding cannabis.

In January 2018, the DOJ rescinded certain memoranda, including the so-called “Cole Memo” issued on August 29, 2013 under the Obama Administration, which had characterized enforcement of federal cannabis prohibitions under the CSA to prosecute those complying with state regulatory systems allowing the use, manufacture and distribution of medical cannabis as an inefficient use of federal investigative and prosecutorial resources when state regulatory and enforcement efforts are effective with respect to enumerated federal enforcement priorities under the CSA. In rescinding the Cole Memo, DOJ instructed its prosecutors to enforce the laws enacted by Congress and to follow well-established principles that govern all federal prosecutions when deciding whether to pursue prosecutions related to cannabis activities. As a result, federal prosecutors could, and still can, use their prosecutorial discretion to decide to prosecute actors compliant with their state laws. Although there have not been any identified prosecutions of state law compliant

37

Table of Contents

cannabis entities, there can be no assurance that the federal government will not enforce federal laws against the regulated cannabis industry generally, including our tenants and us.

Attorney General Merrick Garland, who was confirmed as U.S. Attorney General on March 10, 2021, has not provided a clear policy directive for the United States as it pertains to state-legal cannabis-related activities, and there can be no assurance that DOJ or other law enforcement authorities will not seek to vigorously enforce existing laws.

Congress previously enacted an omnibus spending bill that includes the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment prohibiting the DOJ (which includes the DEA) from using funds appropriated by that bill to prevent states from implementing their medical-use cannabis laws. This provision will expire on September 30, 2023. There can be no assurance that Congress will approve inclusion of a similar prohibition in future appropriations bills to prevent DOJ from using congressionally appropriated funds to enforce federal cannabis laws against regulated medical cannabis actors operating in compliance with state and local law. In USA vs. McIntosh, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that this provision prohibits the DOJ from spending funds from relevant appropriations acts to prosecute individuals who engage in conduct permitted by state medical-use cannabis laws and who strictly comply with such laws. However, the Ninth Circuit’s opinion, which only applies to the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Idaho, also held that persons who do not strictly comply with all state laws and regulations regarding the distribution, possession and cultivation of medical-use cannabis have engaged in conduct that is unauthorized, and in such instances the DOJ may prosecute those individuals. Furthermore, while we target the acquisition of medical-use cannabis facilities, our leases do not prohibit cannabis cultivation for adult-use that is permissible under the state and local laws where our facilities are located, such as in Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Virginia and Washington. Consequently, certain of our tenants currently (and additional tenants may in the future) cultivate adult-use cannabis in our medical-use cannabis facilities, as permitted by such state and local laws now or in the future, which may in turn subject the tenant, us and our properties to greater and/or different federal legal and other risks as compared to facilities where cannabis is cultivated exclusively for medical use, including not providing protection under the Congressional spending bill provision described above.

Additionally, financial transactions involving proceeds generated by cannabis-related conduct can form the basis for prosecution under the federal money laundering statutes, unlicensed money transmitter statutes and the Bank Secrecy Act. The penalties for violation of these laws include imprisonment, substantial fines and forfeiture. Prior to the DOJ’s rescission of the Cole Memo, supplemental guidance from the DOJ issued under the Obama administration directed federal prosecutors to consider the federal enforcement priorities enumerated in the Cole Memo when determining whether to charge institutions or individuals with any of the financial crimes described above based upon cannabis-related activity. This supplemental guidance was followed by the February 14, 2014 FinCEN Memorandum outlining the pathways for financial institutions to bank state-sanctioned cannabis businesses in compliance with federal enforcement priorities. Under these guidelines, financial institutions must submit a SAR in connection with all cannabis-related banking activities by any client of such financial institution, in accordance with federal money laundering laws. These cannabis-related SARs are divided into three categories - cannabis limited, cannabis priority, and cannabis terminated - based on the financial institution’s belief that the business in question follows state law, is operating outside of compliance with state law, or where the banking relationship has been terminated, respectively. The FinCEN Memorandum states that in some circumstances, it is permissible for banks to provide services to cannabis-related businesses without risking prosecution for violation of federal money laundering laws. Although the Cole Memo has been rescinded, the FinCEN Memorandum technically remains intact; however, it is unclear whether the current administration will continue to follow the FinCEN Memorandum. The DOJ continues to have the right and power to prosecute crimes committed by banks and financial institutions, such as money laundering and violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, that occur in any state including states that have in some form legalized the sale of cannabis. Further, the conduct of the DOJ’s enforcement priorities could change for any number of reasons. A change in the DOJ’s priorities could result in the DOJ’s prosecuting banks and financial institutions for crimes that were not previously prosecuted.

Federal prosecutors have significant discretion and no assurance can be given that the federal prosecutor in each judicial district where we purchase a property will not choose to strictly enforce the federal laws governing cannabis operations. Any change in the federal government’s enforcement posture with respect to state-licensed cannabis operations, including the enforcement postures of individual federal prosecutors in judicial districts where we purchase properties, would result in our inability to execute our business plan, and we would likely suffer significant losses with

38

Table of Contents

respect to our investment in cannabis facilities in the United States, which would adversely affect the trading price of our securities. Furthermore, following any such change in the federal government’s enforcement position, we could be subject to criminal prosecution, which could lead to imprisonment and/or the imposition of penalties, fines, or forfeiture.

Certain of our tenants engage in operations for the adult-use cannabis industry in addition to or in lieu of operations for the medical-use cannabis industry, and such tenants, we and our properties may be subject to additional risks associated with such adult-use cannabis operations.

Our existing leases at our properties do not, and we expect that leases that we enter into with future tenants at other properties we acquire will not, prohibit cannabis operations for adult-use that is permissible under state and local laws where our facilities are located and certain of our tenants are currently engaged in operations for the adult-use cannabis industry, which may subject our tenants, us and our properties to different and greater risks, including greater prosecution risk for aiding and abetting violation of the CSA and federal laws governing money laundering. For example, the prohibition in the current omnibus spending bill that prohibits the DOJ from using funds appropriated by Congress to prevent states from implementing their medical-use cannabis laws does not extend to adult-use cannabis laws. In addition, while we may purchase properties in states that only permit medical-use cannabis at the time of acquisition, such states may in the future authorize by state legislation or popular vote the legalization of adult-use cannabis, thus permitting our tenants to engage in adult-use cannabis operations at our properties. For example, Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Virginia and Washington permit licensed adult-use cannabis operations, and our leases with tenants in those states allow for adult-use cannabis operations to be conducted at the properties in compliance with state and local laws.

Our ability to grow our business depends on state laws pertaining to the cannabis industry.

Continued development of the cannabis industry depends upon continued legislative authorization of cannabis at the state level. The status quo of, or progress in, the regulated cannabis industry is not assured and any number of factors could slow or halt further progress in this area. While there may be ample public support for legislative action permitting the cannabis operations, numerous factors impact the legislative process. For example, many states that voted to legalize medical and/or adult-use cannabis have seen significant delays in the drafting and implementation of industry regulations and issuance of licenses. In addition, burdensome regulation at the state level could slow or stop further development of the cannabis industry, such as limiting the medical conditions for which medical cannabis can be recommended by physicians for treatment, not strictly enforcing regulations for non-licensed cannabis operators, restricting the form in which medical cannabis can be consumed, imposing significant registration requirements on physicians and patients or imposing significant taxes on the growth, processing and/or retail sales of cannabis, which could have the impact of dampening growth of the cannabis industry and making it difficult for cannabis businesses, including our tenants, to operate profitably in those states. Any one of these factors could slow or halt additional legislative authorization of cannabis, which could harm our business prospects.

​

For example, we believe that California’s taxation of regulated cannabis at local and state governmental levels and ineffective enforcement policy with respect to illicit cannabis sales have significantly limited the growth and profitability of operators in that state. According to Global Go Analytics, the illicit market for cannabis remains a much larger portion of overall sales in the state, and state and local authorities have assessed significant taxes on regulated cannabis products, both of which have had the impact of significantly limiting the growth and profitability for operators in the state’s regulated cannabis market.

​

Recently, many states have also experienced significant declines in unit pricing for regulated cannabis products, with that decline more pronounced in certain states than in others. For example, according to New Leaf Data Services, spot wholesale cannabis flower prices in California and Michigan have each declined more than 30% during 2022. As a result, certain regulated cannabis operators have announced that they are consolidating operations or shuttering certain operations to reduce costs, which if prolonged, could have a material negative impact on operators’ demand for regulated cannabis facilities, including our existing tenants.

​

39

Table of Contents

New laws that are adverse to the business of our tenants may be enacted, and current favorable national, state or local laws or enforcement guidelines relating to cannabis operations may be modified or eliminated in the future.

We have acquired and are targeting for acquisition properties that are owned by state-licensed cannabis operators. Relevant state or local laws may be amended or repealed, or new laws may be enacted in the future to eliminate existing laws permitting cannabis operations. If our tenants were forced to close their operations, we would need to replace those tenants with tenants who are not engaged in the cannabis industry, who most likely pay significantly lower rents. Moreover, any changes in state or local laws that reduce or eliminate the ability to conduct cannabis operations would likely result in a high vacancy rate for the kinds of properties that we seek to acquire, which would depress our lease rates and property values. In addition, we would realize an economic loss on any and all improvements made to properties that were specific to the cannabis industry.

For example, in connection with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identifying cases of vaping-related lung injuries, certain state and local governments had instituted temporary bans. In addition to litigation and reputational risks surrounding vaping-related lung injuries, bans or heightened regulations could have a material adverse impact on our tenants’ operations in those states and localities where such a ban or other restrictive regulation has been implemented.

FDA regulation of cannabis and the possible registration of facilities where cannabis is grown could negatively affect the cannabis industry, which would directly affect our financial condition.

Should the federal government legalize cannabis, it is possible that the FDA would seek to regulate it under the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938 or under the Public Health Service Act. Additionally, the FDA may issue rules, regulations, or guidance including certified good manufacturing practices, related to the growth, cultivation, harvesting and processing of medical cannabis. If regulated by the FDA as a drug, clinical trials may be needed to verify efficacy and safety. It is also possible that the FDA would require that facilities where cannabis is grown register with the FDA and comply with certain federally prescribed regulations. In the event that some or all of these regulations or enforcement actions are imposed, we do not know what the impact this would have on the cannabis industry, including what costs, requirements and possible prohibitions may be enforced. If we or our tenants are unable to comply with the regulations or registration as prescribed by the FDA, we and or our tenants may be unable to continue to operate their and our business in its current form or at all.

We and our tenants may have difficulty accessing the service of banks and other financial institutions, which may make it difficult to contract for real estate needs.

Financial transactions involving proceeds generated by cannabis-related conduct can form the basis for prosecution under the federal money laundering statutes, unlicensed money transmitter statute and the Bank Secrecy Act. Previous guidance issued by FinCEN clarified how financial institutions can provide services to cannabis-related businesses consistent with their obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act. However, this guidance does not provide any safe harbors or legal defenses from examination or regulatory or criminal enforcement actions by the DOJ, FinCEN or other federal regulators. Thus, most banks and other financial institutions in the United States do not appear to be comfortable providing banking services to cannabis-related businesses, or relying on this guidance, which can be amended or revoked at any time by the executive branch. In addition to the foregoing, banks may refuse to process debit card payments and credit card companies generally refuse to process credit card payments for cannabis-related businesses. Prior to the DOJ’s announcement in January 2018 of the rescission of the Cole Memo and related memoranda, supplemental guidance from the DOJ directed federal prosecutors to consider the federal enforcement priorities enumerated in the Cole Memo when determining whether to charge institutions or individuals with any of the financial crimes described above based upon cannabis-related activity. It remains unclear what impact the rescission of the Cole Memo will have, but federal prosecutors may increase enforcement activities against institutions or individuals that are conducting financial transactions related to cannabis activities. The increased uncertainty surrounding financial transactions related to cannabis activities may also result in financial institutions discontinuing services to the cannabis industry.

40

Table of Contents

Consequently, those businesses involved in the regulated cannabis industry continue to encounter difficulty establishing banking relationships, which may increase over time. Our inability to maintain our current bank accounts would make it difficult for us to operate our business, increase our operating costs, and pose additional operational, logistical and security challenges and could result in our inability to implement our business plan.

The terms of our leases require that our tenants make rental payments via check or wire transfer. Only a small percentage of financial institutions in the United States currently provide banking services to licensed cannabis operators. The inability of our current and potential tenants to open accounts and continue using the services of banks will limit their ability to enter into triple-net lease arrangements with us or may result in their default under our lease agreements, either of which could materially harm our business and the trading price of our securities.

In addition, for our tenants that are publicly traded companies, securities clearing firms may refuse to accept deposits of securities of those tenants, which may negatively impact the trading and valuations of such tenants and have a material adverse impact on our tenants’ ability to finance their operations and growth through the capital markets.

In addition, federal money laundering statutes and Bank Secrecy Act regulations discourage financial institutions from working with any organization that sells a controlled substance, regardless of whether the state it resides in permits cannabis sales. While the United States House of Representatives has passed the SAFE Banking Act, which would permit commercial banks to offer services to cannabis companies that are in compliance with state law, it remains under consideration by the Senate, and if Congress fails to pass the SAFE Banking Act, the Company’s inability, or limitations on the Company’s ability, to open or maintain bank accounts, obtain other banking services and/or accept credit card and debit card payments may make it difficult for the Company to operate and conduct its business as planned or to operate efficiently.

Owners of properties located in close proximity to our properties may assert claims against us regarding the use of the property as a regulated cannabis cultivation, processing or dispensing facility, which if successful, could materially and adversely affect our business.

Owners of properties located in close proximity to our properties may assert claims against us regarding the use of our properties for regulated cannabis cultivation, processing or dispensing, including assertions that the use of the property constitutes a nuisance that diminishes the market value of such owner’s nearby property. Such property owners may also attempt to assert such a claim in federal court as a civil matter under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. If a property owner were to assert such a claim against us, we may be required to devote significant resources and costs to defending ourselves against such a claim, and if a property owner were to be successful on such a claim, our tenants may be unable to continue to operate their business in its current form at the property, which could materially adversely impact the tenant’s business and the value of our property, our business and financial results and the trading price of our securities.

Laws and regulations affecting the regulated cannabis industry are constantly changing, which could materially adversely affect our operations, and we cannot predict the impact that future regulations may have on us.

Local, state and federal cannabis laws and regulations are broad in scope and subject to evolving interpretations, which could require us to incur substantial costs associated with compliance or alter our business plan. In addition, violations of these laws, or allegations of such violations, could disrupt our business and result in a material adverse effect on our operations. It is also possible that regulations may be enacted in the future that will be directly applicable to our business. We cannot predict the nature of any future laws, regulations, interpretations or applications, nor can we determine what effect additional governmental regulations or administrative policies and procedures, when and if promulgated, could have on our business.

Assets leased to cannabis businesses may be forfeited to the federal government.

Any assets used in conjunction with the violation of federal law are potentially subject to federal forfeiture, even in states where cannabis is legal. In July 2017, the DOJ issued a new policy directive regarding asset forfeiture, referred to as the “equitable sharing program.” Under this new policy directive, federal authorities may adopt state and local

41

Table of Contents

forfeiture cases and prosecute them at the federal level, allowing for state and local agencies to keep up to 80% of any forfeiture revenue. This policy directive represents a reversal of the DOJ’s policy under the Obama administration, and allows for forfeitures to proceed that are not in accord with the limitations imposed by state-specific forfeiture laws. This new policy directive may lead to increased use of asset forfeitures by local, state and federal enforcement agencies. If the federal government decides to initiate forfeiture proceedings against cannabis businesses, such as the cannabis facilities that we have acquired and intend to acquire, our investment in those properties may be lost.

We may have difficulty accessing bankruptcy courts.

As discussed above, cannabis is illegal under federal law. Therefore, there is a compelling argument that the federal bankruptcy courts cannot provide relief for parties who engage in the cannabis or cannabis related businesses. Recent bankruptcy rulings have denied bankruptcies for dispensaries upon the justification that businesses cannot violate federal law and then claim the benefits of federal bankruptcy for the same activity and upon the justification that courts cannot ask a bankruptcy trustee to take possession of, and distribute cannabis assets as such action would violate the CSA. Therefore, we may not be able to seek the protection of the bankruptcy courts and this could materially affect our business or our ability to obtain credit.

The properties that we acquire are subject to extensive regulations, which may result in significant costs and materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

Our properties are and other properties that we expect to acquire will be subject to various laws and regulatory requirements. For example, local property regulations, including restrictive covenants of record, may restrict the use of properties we acquire and may require us to obtain approval from local authorities with respect to the properties that we expect to acquire, including prior to acquiring a property or when developing or undertaking renovations. Among other things, these restrictions may relate to cultivation, processing or dispensing of cannabis, the use of water and the discharge of waste water, fire and safety, seismic conditions, asbestos-cleanup or hazardous material abatement requirements. Our failure to obtain such regulatory approvals could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations. Furthermore, we cannot assure you that the regulatory requirements and statutory prohibitions relating to properties used in cannabis operations will not materially and adversely affect us or the timing or cost of any future acquisitions, developments or renovations, or that additional regulations will not be adopted that would increase such delays or result in additional prohibition or costs.

Compliance with environmental laws could materially increase our operating expenses.

There may be environmental conditions associated with properties we acquire of which we are unaware. If environmental contamination exists on properties we acquire, we could become subject to liability for the contamination. The presence of hazardous substances on a property may materially and adversely affect our ability to sell the property and we may incur substantial remediation costs. In addition, although we may require in our leases that tenants operate in compliance with all applicable laws and indemnify us against any environmental liabilities arising from a tenant’s activities on the property, we could nonetheless be subject to liability by virtue of our ownership interest and we cannot be sure that our tenants would satisfy their indemnification obligations to us. Such environmental liability exposure associated with properties we acquire could harm our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

Risks Related to Financing Our Business

Our growth depends on external sources of capital, which may not be available on favorable terms or at all. In addition, banks, financial institutions, and other capital market participants may be reluctant to enter into lending and other financing transactions with us because we acquire properties used in the cultivation and production of cannabis. If one or more of these sources of funding is unavailable to us, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

We expect to acquire additional real estate assets, which we intend to finance primarily through newly issued equity or debt. We may not be in a position to take advantage of attractive investment opportunities for growth if we are unable, due to global or regional economic uncertainty, changes in the state or federal regulatory environment relating to the

42

Table of Contents

cannabis industry, restrictions that potential investors may have to own our equity or debt due to our tenant’s operations in the regulated cannabis industry, changes in market conditions for the regulated cannabis industry, our own operating or financial performance or otherwise, to access capital markets on a timely basis and on favorable terms or at all. In addition, U.S. federal income tax law generally requires that a REIT distribute annually at least 90% of its REIT taxable income, without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and excluding net capital gain and that it pay U.S. federal income tax at regular corporate rates to the extent that it annually distributes less than 100% of its taxable income. Because we intend to grow our business, this limitation may require us to raise additional equity or incur debt at a time when it may be disadvantageous to do so.

Our access to capital will depend upon a number of factors over which we have little or no control, including general market conditions, restrictions imposed on potential investors and other capital markets participants due to our tenants’ operations in the regulated cannabis industry, and the market’s perception of our current and potential future earnings. If general economic instability or downturn leads to an inability to borrow at attractive rates or at all, our ability to obtain capital to finance the purchase of real estate assets could be negatively impacted. In addition, banks and other financial institutions may be reluctant to enter into lending transactions with us, particularly secured lending, because we intend to acquire properties used in the cultivation, production or dispensing of cannabis. If this source of funding is unavailable to us, our growth may be limited and our levered return on the properties we purchase may be lower.

If we are unable to obtain capital on terms and conditions that we find acceptable, we likely will have to reduce the number of properties we can purchase. In addition, our ability to refinance all or any debt we may incur in the future, on acceptable terms or at all, is subject to all of the above factors, and will also be affected by our future financial position, results of operations and cash flows, which additional factors are also subject to significant uncertainties, and therefore we may be unable to refinance any debt we may incur in the future, as it matures, on acceptable terms or at all. All of these events would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

In addition, securities clearing firms may refuse to accept deposits of our securities, which may negatively impact the trading of our securities and have a material adverse impact on our ability to obtain capital.

In recent months, general financial conditions have deteriorated significantly, which has also significantly reduced our access to capital. If sustained, this would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, including our ability to continue to make acquisitions of new properties and fund draws for future improvements at existing properties.

Our Notes due 2026, Exchangeable Senior Notes and any future indebtedness reduce our cash available for distribution and may expose us to the risk of default.

As of February 28, 2023, we had outstanding $300.0 million aggregate principal amount of our Notes due 2026 and approximately $6.4 million aggregate principal amount of Exchangeable Senior Notes. Payments of principal and interest on our Notes due 2026 and Exchangeable Senior Notes and borrowings that we may incur in the future may leave us with insufficient cash resources to operate our properties or to pay the distributions currently contemplated or necessary to satisfy the requirements for REIT qualification. Our level of debt and the limitations imposed on us by these debt agreements could have significant material and adverse consequences, including the following:

43

Table of Contents

If any one of these events were to occur, our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow, and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders could be materially and adversely affected.

A downgrade in our investment grade credit rating could materially adversely affect our business and financial condition.

There can be no assurance that we will be able to maintain our current credit rating. Any downgrade in terms of rating or outlook by the rating agency could have a material adverse impact on our cost and availability of capital, which could in turn have a material adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations and liquidity and a material adverse effect on the market price of our common stock.

The terms governing our Notes due 2026 include restrictive covenants relating to our operations, which could limit our ability to respond to changing market conditions and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

The indenture governing the Notes due 2026 contains financial and operating covenants that, among other things, restrict our ability to take specific actions, even if we believe them to be in our best interest, including restrictions on our ability to (1) consummate a merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets and (2) incur additional secured and unsecured indebtedness.

The covenants relating to our Notes due 2026 may adversely affect our flexibility and our ability to achieve our operating plans. The indenture governing the Exchangeable Senior Notes also contains certain covenants. Our ability to comply with these covenants and other provisions relating to our indentures governing the Notes due 2026 and the Exchangeable Senior Notes may be affected by changes in our operating and financial performance, changes in general business and economic conditions, adverse regulatory developments or other events adversely impacting us. The breach of any of these covenants could result in a default under our indebtedness, which could cause those and other obligations to become due and payable. If any of our indebtedness is accelerated, we may not be able to repay it, pursue our business plan or make distributions to our stockholders.

Risks Related to Our Organization and Structure

Our senior management team manages our portfolio subject to very broad investment guidelines.

Our senior management team has broad discretion over our investments, and our stockholders will have no opportunity to evaluate the terms of transactions or other economic or financial data concerning our investments that are not described in periodic filings with the SEC. We rely on the senior management team’s ability to execute acquisitions and dispositions of cannabis facilities, subject to the oversight and approval of our board of directors. Our senior management team is authorized to pursue acquisitions and dispositions of real estate investments in accordance with very broad investment guidelines, subject to approval of our board of directors.

Our board of directors may change our investment objectives and strategies without stockholder consent.

Our board of directors determines our major policies, including with regard to financing, growth, debt capitalization, REIT qualification and distributions. Our board of directors may amend or revise these and other policies without a vote of the stockholders. Under our charter and Maryland General Corporation Law (the “MGCL”), our stockholders generally have a right to vote only on the following matters:

44

Table of Contents

All other matters are subject to the discretion of our board of directors.

Certain provisions of Maryland law could inhibit changes in control.

Under the MGCL, “business combinations” (including a merger, consolidation, statutory share exchange or, in certain circumstances, an asset transfer or issuance or reclassification of equity securities) between a Maryland corporation and an “interested stockholder” or an affiliate of an interested stockholder are prohibited for five years after the most recent date on which the interested stockholder becomes an interested stockholder. An interested stockholder is defined as: (a) any person who beneficially owns 10% or more of the voting power of the then-outstanding voting stock of the corporation; or (b) an affiliate or associate of the corporation who, at any time within the two-year period prior to the date in question, was the beneficial owner of 10% or more of the voting power of the then-outstanding stock of the corporation.

A person is not an interested stockholder under the statute if the board of directors approved in advance the transaction by which the person otherwise would have become an interested stockholder. A Maryland corporation’s board of directors may provide that its approval is subject to compliance with any terms and conditions determined by the board of directors prior to the time that the interested stockholder becomes an interested stockholder.

Thereafter, any such business combination must generally be recommended by the board of directors of such corporation and approved by the affirmative vote of at least:

A Maryland corporation’s board of directors may provide that its approval is subject to compliance with any terms and conditions determined by it. These provisions of the MGCL do not apply, however, to business combinations that

45

Table of Contents

are approved or exempted by a Maryland corporation’s board of directors prior to the time that the interested stockholder becomes an interested stockholder.

The “control share” provisions of the MGCL provide that, subject to certain exceptions, a holder of “control shares” of a Maryland corporation (defined as shares which, if aggregated with all other shares of stock owned by the acquirer or in respect of which the acquirer is able to exercise or direct the exercise of voting power (except solely by virtue of a revocable proxy), entitle the stockholder to exercise one of three increasing ranges of voting power in electing directors) acquired in a “control share acquisition” (defined as the direct or indirect acquisition of ownership or control of issued and outstanding “control shares”) has no voting rights with respect to such shares except to the extent approved by our stockholders by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all the votes entitled to be cast on the matter, excluding votes entitled to be cast by the acquirer of control shares, our officers and our personnel who are also our directors. Our bylaws contain a provision exempting from the control share acquisition statute any and all acquisitions by any person of shares of our stock. Our bylaws contain a provision exempting from the control share acquisition statute any and all acquisitions by any person of shares of our stock. There can be no assurance that such provision will not be amended or eliminated at any time in the future by our board of directors.

The “unsolicited takeover” provisions of Title 3, Subtitle 8 of the MGCL, or Subtitle 8, permit our board of directors, without stockholder approval and regardless of what is currently provided in our charter or bylaws, to implement certain takeover defenses, some of which (for example, a classified board) we do not yet have. Our charter provides that vacancies on our board may be filled only by the remaining directors and for the remainder of the full term of the directorship in which the vacancy occurred. Through provisions in our charter and bylaws unrelated to Subtitle 8, we already (i) require the affirmative vote of stockholders entitled to cast not less than two-thirds of all of the votes entitled to be cast generally in the election of directors for the removal of any director from the board, only with cause, (ii) vest in the board of directors the exclusive power to fix the number of directorships and (iii) require, unless called by our chairman of the board, our chief executive officer or our board of directors, the written request of stockholders entitled to cast not less than a majority of all votes entitled to be cast at such a meeting to call a special meeting of our stockholders.

These provisions may have the effect of inhibiting a third party from making an acquisition proposal for us or of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control of us under the circumstances that otherwise could provide the holders of shares of common stock with the opportunity to realize a premium over the then current market price.

Our authorized but unissued shares of common and preferred stock may prevent a change in our control.

Our charter permits our board of directors to authorize us to issue additional shares of our authorized but unissued common or preferred stock. In addition, our board of directors may, without stockholder approval, amend our charter to increase the aggregate number of our shares of stock or the number of shares of stock of any class or series that we have the authority to issue and classify or reclassify any unissued shares of common or preferred stock and set the terms of the classified or reclassified shares. As a result, our board of directors may establish a class or series of shares of common or preferred stock that could delay or prevent a transaction or a change in control that might involve a premium price for shares of our common stock or otherwise be in the best interest of our stockholders.

Severance agreements with our executive officers could be costly and prevent a change in our control.

The severance agreements that we entered into with our executive officers provide that, if their employment with us terminates under certain circumstances (including upon a change in our control), we may be required to pay them significant amounts of severance compensation, including accelerated vesting of equity awards, thereby making it costly to terminate their employment. Furthermore, these provisions could delay or prevent a transaction or a change in our control that might involve a premium paid for our common stock or otherwise be in the best interests of our stockholders.

46

Table of Contents

Because of our holding company structure, we depend on our Operating Partnership and its subsidiaries for cash flow and we will be structurally subordinated in right of payment to the obligations of such operating subsidiary and its subsidiaries.

We are a holding company with no business operations of our own. Our only significant asset is and will be the general and limited partnership interests in our Operating Partnership. We conduct, and intend to continue to conduct, all of our business operations through our Operating Partnership. Accordingly, our only source of cash to pay our obligations is distributions from our Operating Partnership and its subsidiaries of their net earnings and cash flows. We cannot assure our stockholders that our Operating Partnership or its subsidiaries will be able to, or be permitted to, make distributions to us that will enable us to make distributions to our stockholders from cash flows from operations. Each of our Operating Partnership’s subsidiaries is or will be a distinct legal entity and, under certain circumstances, legal and contractual restrictions may limit our ability to obtain cash from such entities. In addition, because we are a holding company, your claims as stockholders will be structurally subordinated to all existing and future liabilities and obligations of our Operating Partnership and its subsidiaries. Therefore, in the event of our bankruptcy, liquidation or reorganization, our assets and those of our Operating Partnership and its subsidiaries will be able to satisfy your claims as stockholders only after all of our and our Operating Partnership’s and its subsidiaries’ liabilities and obligations have been paid in full. Furthermore, U.S. bankruptcy courts have generally refused to grant bankruptcy protections to cannabis businesses.

Our Operating Partnership may issue additional limited partnership interests to third parties without the consent of our stockholders, which would reduce our ownership percentage in our Operating Partnership and would have a dilutive effect on the amount of distributions made to us by our Operating Partnership and, therefore, the amount of distributions we can make to our stockholders.

We are the sole general partner of our Operating Partnership and own, directly or through subsidiaries, 100% of the outstanding partnership interests in our Operating Partnership. We may, in connection with our acquisition of properties or otherwise, cause our Operating Partnership to issue additional limited partnership interests to third parties. Such issuances would reduce our ownership percentage in our Operating Partnership and affect the amount of distributions made to us by our Operating Partnership and, therefore, the amount of distributions we can make to our stockholders. Because our stockholders will not directly own any interest in our Operating Partnership, our stockholders will not have any voting rights with respect to any such issuances or other partnership level activities of our Operating Partnership.

If we issue limited partnership interests in our Operating Partnership in exchange for property, the value placed on such partnership interests may not accurately reflect their market value, which may dilute your interest in us.

If we issue limited partnership interests in our Operating Partnership in exchange for property, the per unit value attributable to such interests will be determined based on negotiations with the property seller and, therefore, may not reflect the fair market value of such limited partnership interests if a public market for such limited partnership interests existed. If the value of such limited partnership interests is greater than the value of the related property, your interest in us may be diluted.

Our rights and the rights of our stockholders to take action against our directors and officers are limited, which could limit your recourse in the event of actions not in your best interests.

We have entered into indemnification agreements with each of our executive directors and officers that provide for indemnification to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law. Maryland law permits us to include in our charter a provision eliminating the liability of our directors and officers and our stockholders for money damages except for liability resulting from:

47

Table of Contents

Our charter authorizes us to obligate ourselves and our bylaws obligate us, to the fullest extent permitted by Maryland law in effect from time to time, to indemnify and, without requiring a preliminary determination of the ultimate entitlement to indemnification, pay or reimburse reasonable expenses in advance of final disposition of a proceeding to:

Our charter contains provisions that make removal of our directors difficult, which could make it difficult for our stockholders to effect changes to our management.

Our charter provides that, subject to the rights of holders of any series of preferred stock, a director may be removed only with cause upon the affirmative vote of stockholders entitled to cast at least two-thirds of the votes entitled to be cast generally in the election of directors. Vacancies may be filled only by a vote of the majority of the remaining directors in office, even if less than a quorum. These requirements make it more difficult to change our management by removing and replacing directors and may prevent a change in control of our company that is in the best interests of our stockholders.

Ownership limitations may restrict change in control or business combination opportunities in which our stockholders might receive a premium for their shares.

In order for us to qualify as a REIT under the Code, shares of our stock must be owned by 100 or more persons during at least 335 days of a taxable year of 12 months (other than the first year for which an election to be a REIT has been made) or during a proportionate part of a shorter taxable year. Also, not more than 50% of the value of the outstanding shares of our stock may be owned, directly or indirectly, by five or fewer individuals (as defined in the Code to include certain entities) during the last half of a taxable year (other than the first year for which an election to be a REIT has been made). In order for us to qualify as a REIT under the Code, the relevant sections of our charter provide that, subject to certain exceptions, no person or entity may own, or be deemed to own, by virtue of the applicable constructive ownership provisions of the Code, more than 9.8% (in value or number of shares, whichever is more restrictive) of the aggregate of our outstanding shares of stock or more than 9.8% (in value or number of shares, whichever is more restrictive) of our outstanding common stock or any class or series of our outstanding preferred stock, including our 9.00% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock (the “Series A Preferred Stock”). These ownership limits and other restrictions could have the effect of discouraging a takeover or other transaction in which holders of our common stock might receive a premium for their shares over the then prevailing market price or which holders might believe to be otherwise in their best interests.

We plan to continue to operate our business so that we are not required to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act.

We engage primarily in the business of investing in real estate and we have not and do not intend to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act. If our primary business were to change in a manner that would require us register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act, we would have to comply with substantial regulation under the Investment Company Act which could restrict the manner in which we operate and finance our business and could materially and adversely affect our business operations and results.

48

Table of Contents

Risks Related to Our Securities

The market prices and trading volumes of our common stock and Series A Preferred Stock have been and may continue to be volatile.

The market prices for our common stock and Series A Preferred Stock have been, and may continue to be, volatile. In addition, the trading volume in our common stock and Series A Preferred Stock has fluctuated and may continue to fluctuate, resulting in significant price variations.

Some of the factors that could negatively affect the share price or result in fluctuations in the price or trading volume of our common stock and preferred stock include:

49

Table of Contents

Market factors unrelated to our performance could also negatively impact the market price of our common stock and preferred stock. One of the factors that investors may consider in deciding whether to buy or sell our common stock or Series A Preferred Stock is our distribution rate as a percentage of our stock price relative to market interest rates. If market interest rates increase, prospective investors may demand a higher distribution rate or seek alternative investments paying higher dividends or interest. As a result, interest rate fluctuations and conditions in capital markets can affect the market value of our common stock or Series A Preferred Stock.

Common stock and preferred stock eligible for future sale may have material and adverse effects on our share price.

Subject to applicable law, our board of directors, without stockholder approval, may authorize us to issue additional shares of our common stock or to raise capital through the issuance of preferred stock (including equity or debt securities convertible into preferred stock), options, warrants and other rights, on terms and for consideration as our board of directors in its sole discretion may determine. Any such issuance could result in dilution of the equity of our stockholders. Sales of substantial amounts of shares of our common stock in the public market, or the perception that such sales might occur, could adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

Our charter also authorizes our board of directors, without stockholder approval, to designate and issue one or more classes or series of preferred stock (including equity or debt securities convertible into preferred stock) and to set or change the voting, conversion or other rights, preferences, restrictions, limitations as to dividends or other distributions and qualifications or terms or conditions of redemption of each class of shares so issued. If any preferred stock is publicly offered, the terms and conditions of such preferred stock (including any equity or debt securities convertible into preferred stock) will be set forth in a registration statement registering the issuance of such preferred stock or equity or debt securities convertible into preferred stock. Because our board of directors has the power to establish the preferences and rights of each class or series of preferred stock, it may afford the holders of any series or class of preferred stock preferences, powers, and rights senior to the rights of holders of common stock or other preferred stock. If we ever create and issue additional preferred stock or equity or debt securities convertible into preferred stock with a distribution preference over common stock or preferred stock, payment of any distribution preferences of new outstanding preferred stock would reduce the amount of funds available for the payment of distributions on the common stock and junior preferred stock. Further, holders of preferred stock are normally entitled to receive a preference payment if we liquidate, dissolve, or wind up before any payment is made to the common stockholders, likely reducing the amount common stockholders would otherwise receive upon such an occurrence. In addition, under certain circumstances, the issuance of additional preferred stock may delay, prevent, render more difficult or tend to discourage a merger, tender offer, or proxy contest, the assumption of control by a holder of a large block of our securities, or the removal of incumbent management.

Furthermore, we filed an automatic shelf registration statement, which may permit us, from time to time, to offer and sell common stock, preferred stock, warrants and other securities to the extent necessary or advisable to meet our liquidity needs.

Additionally, from time to time we also may issue shares of our common stock or operating partnership units of our Operating Partnership in connection with property acquisitions. We may grant additional demand or piggyback registration rights in connection with these issuances. Sales of substantial amounts of our common stock or operating partnership units of our Operating Partnership, or the perception that these sales could occur, may adversely affect the prevailing market price of our common stock or may adversely affect the terms upon which we may be able to obtain additional capital through the sale of equity securities.

As of February 28, 2023, 28,002,799 shares of our common stock were issued and outstanding, and we had reserved an additional 724,297 shares of common stock for future issuance under our 2016 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “2016 Plan”) and 103,625 shares potentially issuable upon exchange of our Exchangeable Senior Notes (based on the exchange rate as of February 28, 2023). In addition, as of February 28, 2023, we had $500.0 million in shares of common stock available for future issuance under the ATM Program. The existence of operating partnership units, Exchangeable Senior

50

Table of Contents

Notes, shares of Series A Preferred Stock, shares of our common stock reserved for issuance under our 2016 Plan and shares available for future issuance under the ATM Program may adversely affect the terms upon which we may be able to obtain additional capital through the sale of equity securities.

We cannot assure you of our ability to make distributions in the future. We may be unable to pay or maintain cash dividends, and may borrow money, sell assets or use offering proceeds to make distributions to our stockholders, if we are unable to make distributions from cash flows from operations.

U.S. federal income tax law generally requires that a REIT distribute annually at least 90% of its REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and excluding net capital gain (which does not equal net income as calculated in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”)), and that it pay U.S. federal income tax at regular corporate rates to the extent that it annually distributes less than 100% of its taxable income. We may not continue our current level of distributions to stockholders. Our board of directors will determine future distributions based on a number of factors, including cash available for distribution, economic conditions, operating results, our financial condition, especially in relation to our anticipated future capital needs, then current expansion plans, the distribution requirements for REITs, and other factors our board deems relevant. In addition, we may borrow money, sell assets or use offering proceeds to make distributions to our stockholders, if we are unable to make distributions from cash flows from operations.

Our charter permits us to pay distributions from any source and, as a result, the amount of distributions paid at any time may not reflect the performance of our properties or as cash flow from operations.

Our organizational documents permit us to make distributions from any source. To the extent that our cash available for distribution is insufficient to cover our distributions, we expect to use our cash on hand, the proceeds from the issuance of securities in the future, the proceeds from borrowings or other sources to pay distributions. It is possible that any distributions declared will be paid from our cash on hand or future issuances of shares of our common stock or preferred stock, which would constitute a return of capital to our stockholders. If we fund distributions from borrowings, sales of properties, future issuances of securities or cash on hand, we will have fewer funds available for the acquisition of additional properties resulting in potentially fewer investments, less diversification of our portfolio and a reduced overall return to our stockholders. In addition, the value of our shares of common stock and preferred stock may be diluted because funds that would otherwise be available to make investments would be diverted to fund distributions.

The market price of our common stock and Series A Preferred Stock could be materially and adversely affected by our level of cash distributions.

The market value of our common stock and Series A Preferred Stock is based primarily upon the market’s perception of our growth potential and our current and potential future cash distributions, whether from operations, sales or re-financings, and is secondarily based upon the real estate market value of our underlying assets. For that reason, our stock may trade at prices that are higher or lower than our net asset value per share. To the extent we retain operating cash flow for investment purposes, working capital reserves or other purposes, these retained funds, while increasing the value of our underlying assets, may not correspondingly increase the market price of our stock. Our failure to meet the market’s expectations with regard to future earnings and cash distributions likely would materially and adversely affect the market price of our common stock and Series A Preferred Stock.

Risks Related to Our Taxation as a REIT

Our failure to qualify or remain qualified as a REIT would subject us to U.S. federal income tax and applicable state and local taxes, which would reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders and have significant adverse consequences on the market price of our common stock and existing preferred stock.

We have made an election to be taxed as a REIT under Sections 856 through 860 of the Code commencing with our taxable year ended December 31, 2017. We believe that we have been organized and operated in such a manner as to qualify for taxation as a REIT under the Code for such taxable year and all subsequent taxable years to date, and intend to continue to operate in such a manner in the future. We have not requested and do not intend to request a ruling from

51

Table of Contents

the Internal Revenue Service (the “Service”) that we qualify as a REIT, and the statements in this report are not binding on the Service or any court. Qualification as a REIT involves the application of highly technical and complex Code provisions and regulations promulgated by the U.S. Treasury Department thereunder (“Treasury Regulations”) for which there are limited judicial and administrative interpretations. Accordingly, we cannot provide assurance that we will qualify or remain qualified as a REIT.

To qualify as a REIT, we must meet, on an ongoing basis, various tests regarding the nature and diversification of our assets and our income, the ownership of our outstanding stock, and the amount of our distributions to stockholders. Our ability to satisfy these asset tests depends upon the characterization and fair market values of our assets, some of which are not susceptible to a precise determination, and for which we will not obtain independent appraisals. Our compliance with the REIT income and quarterly asset requirements also depends upon our ability to manage successfully the composition of our income and assets on an ongoing basis. Moreover, new legislation, court decisions or administrative guidance, in each case possibly with retroactive effect, may make it more difficult or impossible for us to qualify as a REIT. Thus, while we intend to operate in a manner to qualify as a REIT, in view of the highly complex nature of the rules governing REITs, the ongoing importance of factual determinations, and the possibility of future changes in our circumstances, we cannot provide assurance that we will so qualify for any particular year. These considerations also might restrict the types of income we can realize, or assets that we can acquire in the future.

If we fail to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, and we do not qualify for certain statutory relief provisions, we would be required to pay U.S. federal income tax, including any applicable alternative minimum tax (for taxable years beginning before December 31, 2017), on our taxable income at regular corporate rates (and possibly increased state and local taxes. We will not be able to deduct distributions to our stockholders in any year in which we fail to qualify, nor will we be required to make distributions to our stockholders. In such a case, we might need to borrow money, sell assets, or reduce or even cease making distributions in order to pay our taxes. Our payment of income tax would reduce significantly the amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders. If we fail to qualify as a REIT, all distributions to stockholders, to the extent of current and accumulated earnings and profits, will be taxable to the stockholders as dividend income (which may be subject to tax at preferential rates) and corporate distributions may be eligible for the dividends received deduction if they satisfy the relevant provisions of the Code. Furthermore, if we fail to qualify as a REIT, we no longer would be required to distribute substantially all of our net taxable income to our stockholders. In addition, unless we were eligible for certain statutory relief provisions, we could not re-elect to qualify as a REIT until the fifth calendar year following the year in which we failed to qualify. We might not be entitled to the statutory relief described in this paragraph in all circumstances.

The REIT distribution requirements could adversely affect our ability to execute our business plan, require us to borrow funds during unfavorable market conditions or subject us to tax, which would reduce the cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

To qualify as a REIT, we must distribute to our stockholders, on an annual basis, at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and excluding net capital gain. In addition, we will be subject to U.S. federal income tax at regular corporate rates to the extent that we distribute less than 100% of our net taxable income (including net capital gain) and will be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax on the amount by which our distributions in any calendar year are less than a minimum amount specified under U.S. federal income tax laws. We intend to distribute our net income to our stockholders in a manner intended to satisfy the REIT 90% distribution requirement and to avoid U.S. federal income tax and the 4% nondeductible excise tax. However, we can provide no assurances that we will have sufficient cash or other liquid assets to meet these requirements. Difficulties in meeting the distribution requirements might arise due to competing demands for available funds or timing differences between tax reporting and cash receipts. In addition, if the Service were to disallow certain of our deductions, such as employee salaries, depreciation or interest expense, by alleging that we, through our rental agreements with our state-licensed medical cannabis tenants, are primarily or vicariously liable for “trafficking” a Schedule 1 substance (cannabis) under Section 280E of the Code or otherwise, we would be unable to meet the distribution requirements and would fail to qualify as a REIT. Likewise, if any governmental entity were to impose fines on us for our business involvement in state-licensed cannabis, such fines would not be deductible and the inability to deduct such fines could also cause us to be unable to satisfy the distribution requirement.

52

Table of Contents

We may also generate less cash flow than taxable income in a particular year. In such event, we may be required to use cash reserves, incur debt or liquidate assets at rates or times that we regard as unfavorable or, to the extent possible, make a taxable distribution of our stock in order to satisfy the REIT 90% distribution requirement and to avoid U.S. federal income tax and the 4% nondeductible excise tax in that year. Under certain circumstances, we may be able to rectify a failure to meet the distribution requirement for a year by paying “deficiency dividends” to stockholders in a later year, which may be included in our deduction for dividends paid for the earlier year. Thus, we may be able to avoid being taxed on amounts distributed as deficiency dividends; however, we will be required to pay penalties and interest based upon the amount of any deduction taken for deficiency dividends. If we do not have sufficient cash to distribute, we may incur U.S. federal income tax, U.S. federal excise tax and/or our REIT status may be jeopardized.

If we are deemed to be subject to Section 280E of the Code because of the business activities of our tenants, the resulting disallowance of tax deductions could cause us to incur U.S. federal income tax and jeopardize our REIT status.

Section 280E of the Code provides that, with respect to any taxpayer, no deduction or credit is allowed for expenses incurred during a taxable year “in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business (or the activities which comprise such trade or business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of Schedule I and II of the CSA) which is prohibited by federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted.” Because cannabis is a Schedule I controlled substance under the CSA, Section 280E by its terms applies to the purchase and sale of cannabis products. Although we will not be engaged in the purchase, sale, growth, cultivation, harvesting, or processing of cannabis products, we will lease our properties to tenants who will engage in such activities, and therefore our tenants will likely be subject to Section 280E. If the Service were to take the position that, through our rental agreements with our state-licensed cannabis tenants, we are primarily or vicariously liable under federal law for “trafficking” a Schedule 1 substance (cannabis) under section 280E of the Code or for any other violations of the CSA, the Service may seek to apply the provisions of Section 280E to our company and disallow certain tax deductions, including for employee salaries, depreciation or interest expense. If such tax deductions are disallowed, we would be unable to meet the distribution requirements applicable to REITs under the Code, which could cause us to incur U.S. federal income tax and fail to qualify as a REIT. Because we are not engaged in the purchase and/or sale of a controlled substance, we do not believe that we will be subject to the disallowance provisions of Section 280E, and neither we nor our tax advisors are aware of any tax court cases or guidance from the Service in which a taxpayer not engaged in the purchase or sale of a controlled substance was disallowed deductions under Section 280E. However, there is no assurance that the Service will not take such a position either currently or in the future.

Complying with REIT requirements may cause us to forego otherwise attractive business opportunities or liquidate otherwise attractive investments.

To qualify as a REIT, we must ensure that we meet the REIT gross income tests annually. In addition, we must ensure that, at the end of each calendar quarter, at least 75% of the value of our total assets consists of cash, cash items, government securities and qualified REIT real estate assets, including certain mortgage loans, certain kinds of mortgage-backed securities and certain securities issued by other REITs. The remainder of our investment in securities (other than government securities, securities of corporations that are treated as taxable REIT subsidiaries (“TRSs”), and qualified REIT real estate assets) generally cannot include more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of any one issuer or more than 10% of the total value of the outstanding securities of any one issuer.

In addition, in general, no more than 5% of the value of our assets (other than government securities and qualified real estate assets) can consist of the securities of any one issuer, no more than 20% of the value of our total securities can be represented by securities of one or more TRSs, and the aggregate value of debt instruments issued by public REITs held by us that are not otherwise secured by real property may not exceed 25% of the value of our total assets. If we fail to comply with these asset requirements at the end of any calendar quarter, we generally must correct the failure within 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter or qualify for certain statutory relief provisions to avoid losing our REIT qualification and suffering adverse tax consequences.

To meet these tests, we may be required to take or forgo taking actions that we would otherwise consider advantageous. For instance, in order to satisfy the gross income or asset tests applicable to REITs under the Code, we

53

Table of Contents

may be required to forego investments that we otherwise would make. Furthermore, we may be required to liquidate from our portfolio otherwise attractive investments. In addition, we may be required to make distributions to stockholders at disadvantageous times or when we do not have funds readily available for distribution. These actions could have the effect of reducing our income and amounts available for distribution to our stockholders. Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our investment performance.

The tax on prohibited transactions could limit our ability to engage in certain transactions or subject us to a 100% penalty tax.

We are subject to a 100% tax on any income from a prohibited transaction. “Prohibited transactions” generally include sales or other dispositions of property (other than property treated as foreclosure property under the Code) that is held as inventory or primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of a trade or business by a REIT, either directly or indirectly through certain pass-through subsidiaries. Although we do not intend to hold a significant amount of assets as inventory or primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of our business, the characterization of an asset sale as a prohibited transaction depends on the particular facts and circumstances. The Code provides a safe harbor that, if met, allows a REIT to avoid being treated as engaged in a prohibited transaction. It is likely that we may sell certain properties that have not met all of the requirements of such safe harbor if we believe the transaction would not be a prohibited transaction based on a facts and circumstances analysis. If the Service were to successfully argue that such a sale was in fact a prohibited transaction, we would be subject to a 100% penalty tax with respect to such sale.

The ability of our board of directors to revoke our REIT election without stockholder approval may cause adverse consequences to our stockholders.

Our charter provides that the board of directors may revoke or otherwise terminate our REIT election, without the approval of our stockholders, if the board of directors determines that it is no longer in our best interest to attempt to, or continue to, qualify as a REIT. If we cease to qualify as a REIT, we would become subject to U.S. federal income tax on our net taxable income and we generally would no longer be required to distribute any of our net taxable income to our stockholders, which may have adverse consequences on our total return to our stockholders.

Dividends payable by REITs do not qualify for the reduced tax rates on dividend income from regular corporations, which could adversely affect the value of our common stock.

The maximum U.S. federal income tax rate for certain qualified dividends payable to U.S. stockholders that are individuals, trusts and estates is 20%. Dividends (other than capital gain dividends) payable by REITs, however, generally are not eligible for the reduced rates. Although the reduced U.S. federal income tax rate applicable to dividend income from regular corporate dividends does not adversely affect the taxation of REITs or dividends paid by REITs, the more favorable rates applicable to regular corporate dividends could cause investors who are individuals, trusts and estates to perceive investments in REITs to be relatively less attractive than investments in the stocks of non-REIT corporations that pay dividends, which could adversely affect the value of the shares of our common stock.

Non-corporate stockholders, including individuals, generally may deduct 20% of dividends from a REIT, other than capital gain dividends and dividends treated as qualified dividend income, for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 and before January 1, 2026. If we fail to qualify as a REIT, such stockholders may not claim this deduction with respect to dividends paid by us.

Complying with REIT requirements may limit our ability to hedge our liabilities effectively and may cause us to incur tax liabilities.

The REIT provisions of the Code may limit our ability to hedge our liabilities. Any income from a hedging transaction we enter into to manage risk of interest rate changes, price changes or currency fluctuations with respect to borrowings made or to be made to acquire or carry real estate assets, if properly identified under applicable Treasury Regulations, does not constitute “gross income” for purposes of the 75% or 95% gross income tests. To the extent that we enter into other types of hedging transactions, the income from those transactions will likely be treated as non-qualifying income for purposes of both of the gross income tests. As a result of these rules, we may need to limit our use of advantageous hedging techniques or implement those hedges through a TRS. This could increase the cost of our

54

Table of Contents

hedging activities because our TRSs would be subject to tax on gains or expose us to greater risks associated with changes in interest rates than we would otherwise want to bear. In addition, losses in a TRS generally will not provide any tax benefit, except for being carried forward against future taxable income of such TRS, provided, however, losses in a TRS arising in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 may only be deducted against 80% of future taxable income in the TRS.

Re-characterization of sale-leaseback transactions may cause us to lose our REIT status.

We purchase many properties and lease them back to the sellers of such properties. While we will use our best efforts to structure any such sale-leaseback transaction so that the lease will be characterized as a “true lease,” thereby allowing us to be treated as the owner of the property for federal income tax purposes, the Service could challenge such characterization. In the event that any sale-leaseback transaction is challenged and re-characterized as a financing transaction or loan for federal income tax purposes, deductions for depreciation and cost recovery relating to such property would be disallowed. If a sale-leaseback transaction were so re-characterized, we might fail to satisfy the REIT qualification “asset tests” or the “income tests” and, consequently, lose our REIT status effective with the year of re-characterization. Alternatively, the amount of our REIT taxable income could be recalculated which might also cause us to fail to meet the distribution requirement for a taxable year.

Non-U.S. stockholders will generally be subject to withholding tax with respect to our ordinary dividends.

Non-U.S. stockholders generally will be subject to U.S. federal withholding tax on ordinary dividends received from us at a 30% rate, subject to reduction under an applicable treaty or a statutory exemption under the Code.

Legislative, regulatory or administrative changes could adversely affect us or our stockholders.

At any time, the U.S. federal income tax laws or Treasury Regulations governing REITs or the administrative interpretations of those laws or regulations may be changed, possibly with retroactive effect, and may adversely affect us and our stockholders. We cannot predict if or when any new U.S. federal income tax law, regulation or administrative interpretation, or any amendment to any existing U.S. federal income tax law, regulation or administrative interpretation, will be adopted, promulgated or become effective or whether any such law, regulation or interpretation may take effect retroactively.

It remains unclear what impact the rescission of the Cole Memo may have on our ability to qualify as a REIT. If rescission of the Cole Memo is followed by strict enforcement of federal prohibitions regarding cannabis, the Service could seek to apply the provisions of Section 280E of the Code to our company. Section 280E of the Code provides that, with respect to any taxpayer, no deduction or credit is allowed for expenses incurred during a taxable year “in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business (or the activities which comprise such trade or business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of Schedule I and II of the CSA) which is prohibited by federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted.” Because cannabis is a Schedule I controlled substance under the CSA, Section 280E of the Code by its terms applies to the purchase and sale of cannabis products. If the Service were to take the position that, through our rental agreements with our state-licensed cannabis tenants, we are primarily or vicariously liable under federal law for “trafficking” a Schedule 1 substance (cannabis) under Section 280E of the Code or for any other violations of the CSA, the Service may apply the provisions of Section 280E of the Code to our company and disallow certain tax deductions, including for employee salaries, depreciation or interest expense. If such tax deductions are disallowed, we would be unable to meet the distribution requirements applicable to REITs under the Code, which could cause us to incur U.S. federal income tax and fail to qualify as a REIT.

In addition, tax legislation originally introduced as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and signed into law in December 2017 (the “TCJA”) makes numerous changes to the tax rules that do not affect the REIT qualification rules directly, but may otherwise affect us or our stockholders. Among the changes made by the TCJA are permanently reducing the generally applicable corporate tax rate, generally reducing the tax rate applicable to individuals and other non-corporate taxpayers for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017 and before January 1, 2026, eliminating or modifying certain previously allowed deductions (including substantially limiting interest deductibility and, for individuals, the deduction for non-business state and local taxes), and, for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 and before January 1, 2026, providing for preferential rates of taxation through a deduction of up to 20% (subject to certain limitations) on

55

Table of Contents

most ordinary REIT dividends and certain trade or business income of non-corporate taxpayers. The TCJA also imposes new limitations on the deduction of net operating losses, which may result in us having to make additional taxable distributions to our stockholders in order to comply with REIT distribution requirements or avoid taxes on retained income and gains. The effect of the significant changes made by the TCJA is highly uncertain, and administrative guidance will be required in order to fully evaluate the effect of many provisions. The effect of any technical corrections with respect to the TCJA could have an adverse effect on us or our stockholders.

General Risk Factors

We are dependent on our key personnel for our success.

We depend upon the efforts, experience, diligence, skill and network of business contacts of our senior management team, and our success will depend on their continued service. The departure of any of our executive officers or key personnel could have a material adverse effect on our business. If any of our key personnel were to cease their employment, our operating results could suffer. Further, we do not intend to maintain key person life insurance that would provide us with proceeds in the event of death or disability of any of our key personnel.

We believe our future success depends upon our senior management team’s ability to hire and retain highly skilled managerial, operational and marketing personnel. Competition for such personnel is intense, and we cannot assure you that we will be successful in attracting and retaining such skilled personnel. If we lose or are unable to obtain the services of key personnel, our ability to implement our investment strategies could be delayed or hindered, and the value of our common stock may decline.

Furthermore, we may retain independent contractors to provide various services for us, including administrative services, transfer agent services and professional services. Such contractors have no fiduciary duty to us and may not perform as expected or desired.

The occurrence of cyber incidents or cyberattacks could disrupt our operations, result in the loss of confidential information and/or damage our business relationships and reputation.

We rely on technology to run our business, and as such we are subject to risk from cyber incidents, including cyberattacks attempting to gain unauthorized access to our systems to disrupt operations, corrupt data or steal confidential information, and other electronic security breaches. While we have implemented measures to help mitigate these threats, such measures cannot guarantee that we will be successful in preventing a cyber incident. The occurrence of a cyber incident or cyberattack could disrupt our operations, compromise the confidential information of our employees or tenants, and/or damage our business relationships and reputation.

Contingent or unknown liabilities could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

We acquired our properties and may in the future acquire properties, subject to liabilities and without any recourse, or with only limited recourse, with respect to unknown liabilities. As a result, if a claim were asserted against us based on ownership of any of these properties, we may have to pay substantial amounts to defend or settle the claim. If the magnitude of such unknown liabilities is high, individually or in the aggregate, our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations would be materially and adversely affected.

​

ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

Not applicable.

​

56

Table of Contents

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES

As of December 31, 2022, we owned the following 110 properties, of which 108 properties were leased with a weighted-average remaining lease term of approximately 15.3 years:

​