Relocation Provisions in Office Leases

by CoyDavidson on January 21, 2012

What’s this Paragraph About Substitute Premises?

Commercial leases typically contain a provision allowing the Landlord to move tenants from one location within a project to another to accommodate a larger tenant should contiguous space become available during the lease term.

No tenant whether office, retail or industrial should casually accept this provision provided they have the bargaining power to have the language removed from the lease form. While it may not be practical for smaller tenants to attain this concession, the location of the space within the project was likely a key factor in the selection of the space and an essential element in the negotiation of the transaction. In an office lease situation there can be several key critical issues that will affect the tenant’s reluctance to agree to this provision. These include views, access, visibility, proximity to noise producing elements, foot traffic, heating ventilating and air conditioning issues, proximity to competitors to name just a few.

The Landlord’s Perspective

The building owner from an economic perspective has a compelling interest for keeping the relocation provision or substitute premises language in the lease document. The cost burden associated with relocating a tenant within a project falls on the Landlord as most all lease forms are drafted. As a result, the Landlord will only want to invoke this provision provided there is sufficient economic incentive to do so. For example if there is an office tenant who occupies 5,000 square feet of a floor and the remainder of the floor becomes available. Should the Landlord have a prospective tenant in hand for 20,000 square feet (full floor) but can’t make the deal because they can’t relocate the smaller 5,000 square foot tenant somewhere else within the project, then it is lost income and a bitter pill to swallow. As a result the Landlord wants to maintain as much leasing flexibility as possible.

Mechanics of the Relocation Provision

In reality the relocation of tenants to substitute premises within a project is not a common event. However it does happen from time-to-time and if the reality of a tenant’s bargaining power compels accepting the relocation provision in the lease negotiation, then the tenant will want to insure a number of details are spelled out the lease language:

  • All of the costs of the move will be paid by the Landlord, this includes leasehold improvements, IT infrastructure, special equipment relocation and the costs to replace stationary and marketing collateral.
  • The substitute premises should be of similar size and quality and the tenant should not incur any rental increases by accepting a larger space.

In addition, you may want to request the right to cancel the lease as an insurance policy if acceptable substitute premises are not available, paving the way for a successful buyout negotiation.

Often in a substitute premises scenario I have seen Landlords make the proposition attractive by offering a slightly larger space with no rent increase and upgrade the leasehold improvements, as well as cover all the related moving expenses. The best practice of course is to negotiate having the provision removed from the lease. The danger is accepting broad general language if the provision should remain in the lease. As a result of carefully crafting detailed language and narrowly defining what is acceptable substitute premises this scenario can often turn into a positive result and mitigate the inconvenience of having to relocate in the middle of your lease term.

Previous post:

Next post:


Disclaimer: All blog entries on this site are the opinion of the author and not those of either Colliers International - Houston or Colliers International (collectively, "Colliers"). Colliers neither endorses, sponsors nor necessary shares the opinions of the author, regardless of whether any blog is posted by any employee, officer, agent, or representative of Colliers. Colliers has not authorized or verified any statement of fact made in a blog, and any such statement does not constitute a statement of fact by Colliers. Colliers is not responsible for the monitoring or filtering of any blog, nor does Colliers claim ownership or control over any blog content.