Inland Empire Warehouse Development: What the 2026 Data Really Supports

Inland Empire warehouse development deserves a site-specific case, not a blanket bet on logistics. CBRE’s second-quarter 2026 report shows stronger leasing and lower vacancy in its Inland Empire Core, while Cushman & Wakefield reports rising overall vacancy in its own Inland Empire series. Those are separate research series, not interchangeable measurements. Meanwhile, an October 5 state enforcement advisory brings truck-route planning into immediate focus. [1] [2] [3]

Sources checked October 8, 2026. Market figures below describe Q2 2026, not real-time October occupancy. The regulatory update is dated October 5, 2026. This is educational analysis, not an appraisal, investment recommendation, or legal opinion.

What the current research actually measures

CBRE’s report, published July 9, provides the following Q2 2026 figures for its Inland Empire Core. Keep that geography and reporting period attached to every number rather than treating the figures as countywide or property-specific estimates. [1: CBRE]

• Vacancy: 7.4%, down from 7.8% in Q1. The report separates the West at 5.9% and the East at 9.0%.
• New leasing: 15.5 million square feet, compared with 13.9 million in Q1 and 10.9 million in Q2 2025.
• Asking rent: $1.08 per square foot per month, NNN, for the Core. Reported taking rent was $1.05 on the same basis.
• Development: 1.2 million square feet delivered; 3.5 million square feet broke ground; 6.2 million square feet was under construction. The under-construction pipeline was 41.3% below the year-earlier level.

Cushman & Wakefield’s Q2 report instead records 8.8% overall vacancy, up 50 basis points from the prior quarter, and 3.8 million square feet of net occupancy losses through midyear. Do not average the two providers’ vacancy numbers or combine one provider’s quarterly change with the other’s level. Confirm coverage and methodology with each research team before using either in an acquisition model. [2: Cushman & Wakefield]

Our interpretation: the useful question is not simply whether industrial is “back.” It is whether a proposed building can compete against the actual alternatives its intended occupier would consider. Ask for comparable buildings in the relevant size band and location, not just a regional chart.

Choose the operating model before choosing the building

For an early feasibility study, compare several possible briefs: a large distribution building, a smaller multi-tenant industrial project, an owner-user facility, or an upgrade to an existing building. Treat these as alternatives to investigate, not claims that all four are permitted or financially attractive on the same parcel.

Ask prospective occupiers to define loading needs, truck circulation, power, fire protection, storage configuration, employee access, and expansion requirements. Have the design team test those requirements against a real site plan before assuming that the parcel’s gross area translates into rentable space.

A practical shortlist should answer three questions: Who is the customer? Which existing buildings would that customer otherwise lease? What documented advantage would justify this project’s total occupancy cost? If those answers are missing, delay the land-price conclusion.

Why truck routes belong in the first round of due diligence

On October 5, 2026, the California Attorney General issued an enforcement advisory to eight jurisdictions identified as having missed the January 1, 2026 deadline to amend general-plan circulation elements under AB 98. The state named Chino, Moreno Valley, Perris, Rancho Cucamonga, Rialto, Riverside, Ontario, and Riverside County. That is the state’s dated status report, not a statement that every project in those jurisdictions is prohibited. [3: California Attorney General]

The Attorney General explains that AB 98, as amended by SB 415, requires truck-route planning that minimizes impacts on sensitive receptors such as homes, schools, day cares, parks, nursing homes, and hospitals, with heightened community outreach. [3]

For a proposed acquisition, request the jurisdiction’s latest adopted route map and any pending amendments. Ask a transportation consultant to trace the intended truck movement from the highway to the loading area. Ask land-use counsel to identify the rules applicable to the project and its application history. Do not equate freeway proximity with confirmation of a compliant route.

Build a feasibility case that can survive less favorable assumptions

Use a documented base case and a separate downside case. Rather than inventing a marketwide construction price or lease-up period, obtain current project-specific quotations and comparable lease evidence.

• Revenue: distinguish quoted asking rents from executed lease terms; request evidence of concessions and tenant-improvement commitments.
• Capital cost: obtain written pricing for the building, site work, utilities, access improvements, and financing.
• Timing: ask the jurisdiction and project team to document the approval path, dependencies, and unresolved decisions.
• Operations: test the intended tenant’s needs against the design, not just the marketing brochure.
• Community impact: identify nearby sensitive uses and discuss route, noise, and operating questions before finalizing the concept.

Our recommended decision rule: do not pay for an assumed entitlement or an assumed lease. Price the documented project, and identify what still has to become true for the investment to work.

Questions investors often ask

Does strong leasing prove that vacancy is falling everywhere?

No such conclusion follows from these reports. CBRE publishes different East and West vacancy figures, and Cushman & Wakefield’s overall series reports a different regional direction. Retain the source, geography, and period when comparing them. [1] [2]

Does the October advisory amount to a warehouse ban?

The cited advisory addresses jurisdictions’ compliance with truck-route planning requirements; it is not a blanket finding about an individual parcel’s development rights. Obtain project-specific advice rather than treating the advisory as either an automatic rejection or an approval. [3]

Should a developer consider an existing industrial building instead?

Include that option in the comparison. Request the same operating, renovation, access, and financial evidence for an existing property as for a ground-up proposal; this article does not establish that either approach is cheaper.

The bottom line

Industrial development adds a different lens to Southern California real estate: the decision starts with an occupier’s business requirements and the surrounding community, not simply a residential sales comparison. Use the market reports as context, then build the case from the site outward. For a different development model, explore our guide to San Diego transit-oriented housing.

Sources and photo credit

1. CBRE, Inland Empire Industrial Figures Q2 2026, published July 9, 2026. Source for the Core, East, and West market statistics.
2. Cushman & Wakefield, Inland Empire MarketBeat, page dated July 24, 2026; Q2 2026 industrial summary. Separate research series, not merged with CBRE.
3. California Attorney General, AB 98 truck-route enforcement advisory announcement, October 5, 2026. Source for the enforcement update and affected jurisdictions.

All sources accessed October 8, 2026. Figures and rules can change. Photo by CHUTTERSNAP on Unsplash. Illustrative image; no Inland Empire location is asserted.