Rapid data center development is challenging local governments’ ability to manage the environmental challenges these facilities raise. Cities, towns, and counties are facing both uncertainty about the scope of those impacts and growing opposition to data centers from residents. In response, many are turning to temporary moratoria to pause data center development while they figure out the right regulatory approach. According to one Data Center Tracker, at least one hundred data center moratoria have been adopted in communities across the country. But the legal frameworks in which these measures operate can be complex, and cities have limits on how—and for how long—they can use a moratorium in this way.

This first post in our series on data center regulation at the local level provides a closer look at four of the central legal questions that a local government interested in enacting a data center moratorium must navigate.

Enabling Legislation, Delegated Power, Preemption, Constitutional Law

Zoning Enabling Acts. Local authority to pass a data center moratorium is most straightforward where state zoning legislation specifically grants local governments authority to enact a moratorium. This type of legislation exists in states including New Hampshire (“[A] local legislative body may adopt or amend an ordinance establishing a moratorium or limitation on the issuance of building permits or the granting of subdivision or site plan approval for a definite term.”) (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 674:23); Oregon (A “city, county or special district may adopt a moratorium on construction or land development” provided specific conditions are met) (O.R.S. § 197.520); and Minnesota (“[T]he governing body of the municipality . . . may regulate, restrict, or prohibit any use, development, or subdivision within the jurisdiction or a portion thereof for a period not to exceed one year from the date it is effective.”) (Minn. Stat. Ann. § 462.355 Subd. 4). But it doesn’t exist everywhere. Cities without access to this level of statutory clarity will have to look elsewhere for their authority to act.

General Delegations of Police Power. In a handful of states, police power is enough to support a data center moratorium. Some states have recognized that municipal power to temporarily ban a certain land use is implied in delegations of cities’ general police power to regulate matters of health and welfare—even if zoning enabling legislation is missing altogether or does not specifically address moratoria. For example, a New York State Attorney General’s opinion points out that “[t]he enactment of [a moratorium] pending the adoption of a zoning plan is presumed to be a valid exercise of the police power where the restrictions are reasonable and related to public health, safety or general welfare.” 1989 N.Y. Op. Atty. Gen. (Inf.) 73 (N.Y.A.G.). Courts in Louisiana have similarly concluded that “[a]uthority to enact zoning regulations flows from the police power of the various governmental bodies” and that “whether an ordinance is a valid exercise of police power of the city in the constitutional sense apparently depends on whether, under all existing circumstances, the regulation is reasonable and designed to accomplish a purpose properly falling within the scope of the City’s police power.” A. Copeland Enters., Inc. v. City of New Orleans, 372 So. 2d 764, 766 (La. Ct. App. 1979). But not all courts come out the same way. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, for example, has held that “the power to enact a zoning ordinance, for whatever purpose, does not necessarily include the power to suspend a valid zoning ordinance,” and on that basis has rejected arguments that moratorium authority can be implied from the police power or from general grants of zoning authority. Naylor v. Township of Hellam, 565 Pa. 397, 405 (2001). Cities exploring a data center moratorium premised on general delegations of police power will have to take a close look at their state’s law of home rule and case law interpreting the limits of municipal police power.

Preemption. After identifying a source of authority to enact a data center moratorium, a city must still assess whether other provisions of state law would preempt that effort. At the moment, laws specifically stripping local governments of authority to regulate data centers in particular are few, though a notable example was passed in West Virginia last year. West Virginia’s law blocks ordinances that “limit, in any way, the creation of, and acquisition, construction, equipping, development, expansion, and operation of any . . . high impact data center project.” New Hampshire is considering legislation that would also limit local control over data centers, though to a lesser degree than West Virginia. Cities writing moratoria ordinances must assess these kinds of preemptive state laws, as well whether other state laws that may preempt land use regulations.

Constitutional Law. Local governments designing moratoria also need to bear in mind the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. The Supreme Court has held that a total ban on a particular land use, even if applied temporarily, could in theory amount to a taking that triggers a government’s obligation to compensate. See Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Plan. Agency, 535 U.S. 302, 353 (2002). But the Court in Tahoe-Sierra decided that whether a temporary moratorium on development in fact constitutes a taking must be determined on a case-by-case basis using the Penn Central balancing test. Local governments can do many things to reduce the risk that their moratorium will be considered a taking—including, among others, applying the moratoria for only a short period of time, applying it only prospectively, grandfathering existing applications, and creating hardship exemptions in the moratorium for cases where a developer might hope to prove that the measure has wiped out all beneficial use of their property. These tools are effective, but the moratorium drafter needs to keep them in mind.

Procedures and Findings

Where a moratorium is authorized and not preempted by state law, specific procedural guardrails described in case law or statute typically prescribe findings that need to be included to justify a moratorium and procedures for how such a measure can be adopted. Procedural requirements and findings nearly always include that a local government enacting a moratorium must (1) find that the pause created by a moratorium is needed to study a land use’s effects or complete the process of updating regulations; (2) ensure that the moratorium is effective for a clearly defined and limited duration (one year is often the maximum allowed by state legislation); (3) articulate the measure’s scope in a nondiscriminatory way; and (4) base the government’s action a valid public purpose, such as protecting the health of citizens, mitigating environmental impacts, or addressing infrastructure needs, among others. State law articulates requirements of these kinds in a variety of different ways and often prescribes additional requirements for specific types of moratoria—though to date it appears that no states have created specialized procedural criteria for data center moratoria in particular.

A handful of examples of recent data center moratoria highlight some of the ways that local governments are addressing these requirements:

• On February 17, 2026, Eagan, Minnesota adopted Ordinance No. 643, establishing a one-year moratorium on data center development. The ordinance expressed that the city needed time to assess its regulations and ensure “the productive and healthy development of data centers within the City.” The ordinance explicitly applies to all property within the city.
• On January 13, 2026, Harvey County, Kansas voted to impose a moratorium on data centers to remain in effect through the end of 2028. Their Resolution 2026-4 notes “that a need exists to review, consider potential changes and potentially adopt land development regulations and/or standards” relating to data centers.
• On March 3, 2026, Ypsilanti, Michigan adopted Ordinance No. 1457, an emergency, 60-day moratorium on issuing permits for data centers, finding that “[c]ity staff requires additional time to study the issues to ensure the preservation of public peace, health, safety and welfare and has requested a moratorium to study the issues.”
• On June 25, 2025, DeKalb County, Georgia adopted Resolution 2025-0996, establishing a 100-day pause on accepting, granting, and denying applications relating to data centers, broadly including “applications for special land use permits, rezonings, land disturbance permits, building permits, business licenses, or certificates of occupancy.” The Resolution caveats that it does not “prevent the continued operation of any existing data centers that is operating lawfully as of the date of enactment of this moratorium.”

* * *

Where the appropriate authority exists, a moratorium allows time for more comprehensive zoning updates, to revisit planning documents, to learn more about data center impacts, and/or to adopt legislation needed to enter into community benefit agreements with future developers. During a pause on new approvals, ongoing public service commission advocacy may also change the landscape. Having time can bring real benefits to communities that need space to answer questions and better formulate a legislative approach to data center development. But as the examples above highlight, a moratorium is always temporary, and ultimately will not take the place of a stable, long-term approach to mitigating data center impacts.