Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Improvement Allowances. As of September 30, 2026, we had $6.2 million of commitments related to improvement allowances, which generally may be requested by the tenants at any time up until a date that is near the expiration of the initial term of the applicable lease. IQHQ Alewife Mezzanine Loan Commitment. At September 30, 2026, gross principal outstanding on the IQHQ Alewife Mezzanine Loan was $111.0 million which included $2.5 million of retained origination and underwriting fees, aggregate cash disbursements were $108.5 million, and $134.0 million remained available under the commitment, subject to contractual funding conditions. Environmental Matters. We follow the policy of monitoring our properties, both targeted acquisition and existing properties, for the presence of hazardous or toxic substances. While there can be no assurance that a material environmental liability does not exist, we are not currently aware of any environmental liabilities that would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flow, or that we believe would require disclosure or the recording of a loss contingency. Litigation. Class Action Lawsuits On April 25, 2022, a federal securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers. The case was named Michael V. Mallozzi, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Paul Smithers, Catherine Hastings and Andy Bui, Case No. 2-22-cv-02359, and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On September 25, 2024, the district court dismissed the action with prejudice, and on October 15, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal. On October 29, 2025, the appellant filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which was denied on November 13, 2025. Plaintiff did not file a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. This action is concluded. On January 17, 2025, a second federal securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers. The case was named Alain Giraudon, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Alan D. Gold, Paul E. Smithers, David Smith and Ben Regin, Case No. 1:25-cv-00182-RDB, and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The lawsuit was purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of our common stock and alleges that we and certain of our officers made false or misleading statements regarding our business in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. 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 February 27, 2024, and December 19, 2024. On June 23, 2025, a Consolidated Class Action Complaint was filed under the same Case Number, adding Catherine Hastings as a defendant, and asserting causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the Consolidated Class Action 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 February 26, 2024 and March 28, 2025. On August 22, 2025, defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, and on October 21, 2025, plaintiff responded with their opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. On November 20, 2025, defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss. On May 27, 2026, the district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the operative complaint without prejudice. On June 26, 2026, plaintiff filed its Second Amended Class Action Complaint. On August 10, 2026, defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint, and on September 24, 2026, plaintiff filed its opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. On October 23, 2026, defendants filed a reply in further support of their motion to dismiss. The motion is fully briefed and remains pending. It is possible that similar lawsuits may yet be filed in the same or other courts that name the same or additional defendants. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. However, at this time, we cannot predict the probable outcome of this action, and, accordingly, no amounts have been accrued in the Company’s consolidated financial statements. Derivative Action Lawsuits Five derivative lawsuits were filed related to the Mallozzi federal securities class action discussed above. Four of those derivative actions, two filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland and two filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, were voluntarily dismissed in October 2025 and February 2026 and are concluded. The remaining derivative action related to the Mallozzi class action is described below. On May 9, 2024, a fifth derivative action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The case was named Gary A Gedig, derivatively on behalf of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. v. Paul Smithers, Catherine Hastings, Ben Regin, Andy Bui, Tracy Hager, Alan Gold, Gary A. Kreitzer, Mary Curran, Scott Shoemaker, M.D., and David Stecher, and Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Civil No. C-24-CV-24-000130, and filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. Plaintiff and defendants in this action filed a Joint Stipulation to Stay the Proceedings, which was granted on July 30, 2024. On April 23, 2026, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss this derivative action. Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss on June 22, 2026, and defendants filed their reply in further support of the motion on July 22, 2026. This derivative action relates to the same allegations as those made in the Mallozzi class action, detailed above, and remains pending. On February 12, 2025, a derivative action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The case was named Joshua Steffens, derivatively on behalf of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. v. Alan Gold, Paul Smithers, David Smith, Ben Regin, Gary Kreitzer, Gary Stecher, Scott Shoemaker, Mary Allis Curran, and Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Case Number 1:25-cv-00456-ABA, and was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The lawsuit asserts putative derivative claims for violations of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and contribution against the directors and certain officers of the Company. The plaintiffs are seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, an accounting and constructive trust, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On February 18, 2025, the case was reassigned and given Case Number 1:25-cv-00456-GLR. On February 19, 2025, the United States Court for the District of Maryland consolidated Case Nos. 1:25-cv-00469-BAH (detailed below) with case number 1:25-cv-00456-GLR as the lead case, which is stayed. Plaintiff and defendants in this action filed a Joint Stipulation and Order Staying the Consolidated Action, which was granted on March 13, 2025. This derivative action relates to the same allegations as those made in the Giraudon class action, detailed above. On February 13, 2025, a derivative action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The case was named Joshua Albers, derivatively on behalf of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. v. Alan Gold, Paul Smithers, David Smith, Ben Regin, Gary Kreitzer, Gary Stecher, Scott Shoemaker, Mary Allis Curran, and Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Case Number 1:25-cv-00469-BAH, and was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The lawsuit asserts putative derivative claims for violations of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and contribution against the directors and certain officers of the Company. The plaintiffs are seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, reform, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On February 19, 2025, the United States Court for the District of Maryland consolidated Case Nos. 1:25-cv-00469-BAH with case number 1:25-cv-00456-GLR as the lead case. This derivative action also relates to the same allegations as those made in the Giraudon class action, detailed above, and was stayed pending resolution of the Giraudon motion to dismiss, by a March 13, 2025, Court order. On August 14, 2025 and August 21, 2025, two derivative action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland: Joann Crepaz, derivatively on behalf of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. v. Alan Gold, David Boyle, Mary Curran, Catherine Hastings, Gary Kreitzer, Ben Regin, Scott Shoemaker, David Smith, Paul Smithers, David Stecher, and Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Case Number C-03-CV-25-003997, and Edward Ramos, derivatively on behalf of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. v. Alan Gold, David Boyle, Mary Curran, Catherine Hastings, Gary Kreitzer, Ben Regin, Scott Shoemaker, David Smith, Paul Smithers, David Stecher, and Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Case Number C-03-CV-25-004083. Each complaint asserts putative derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment against certain directors and officers and seeks an undetermined amount of damages, reform, restitution, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On September 18, 2025, the parties filed a joint motion to consolidate the actions, which the court granted on October 23, 2025, designating the Crepaz action as the lead case. These derivative actions relate to the same allegations as those asserted in the Giraudon class action described above and were stayed pending resolution of the Giraudon motion to dismiss, by an order of the Circuit Court of Baltimore County, Maryland that was issued on February 10, 2026. On November 19, 2025, a derivative action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The case was named James Loen, derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Innovative Industrial Properties v. Alan Gold, Paul Smithers, David Smith, Ben Regin, Gary Kreitzer, Scott Shoemaker, Catherine Hastings, David Stecher, and Mary Curran, Case Number 1:25-cv-03786, and was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The lawsuit asserts putative derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment against the directors and certain officers of the Company. The plaintiff is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, reform, restitution, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On January 23, 2026, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims. On February 3, 2026, the defendants filed a motion to consolidate the Loen lawsuit with the Steffens and Albers consolidated action, 1:25-cv-00456. On February 17, 2026, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation and Order Staying Action pursuant to which the parties agreed to stay the lawsuit until the resolution of the Giraudon class action. The Court granted the motion on February 20, 2026. The stay can be lifted before then by either party with 30 days’ notice. On October 6, 2026, a derivative action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland. The case was named Shawn Thomas, derivatively on behalf of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. v. Paul Smithers, Alan Gold, Catherine Hastings, David Smith, Ben Regin, Scott Shoemaker, Mary Curran, David Stecher, Gary Kreitzer, and Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Case Number C-03-CV-26-004707. The plaintiff is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, reform of corporate governance and internal procedures, restitution and disgorgement, equitable and injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. This derivative action relates to allegations substantially similar to those asserted in the Giraudon class action described above. The Company intends to vigorously defend each of these lawsuits. However, at this time, the Company cannot predict the probable outcome of these actions, and, accordingly, no amounts have been accrued in the Company’s consolidated financial statements. SEC Investigation On February 13, 2026, the Company was notified that the SEC is conducting a formal investigation of the Company concerning matters generally similar to those alleged in the Giraudon case and related derivative lawsuits. On the same date, the Company received a subpoena from the Denver Regional Office of the Division of Enforcement of the SEC requesting the production of documents and information related to the investigation. The Company intends to cooperate fully with the SEC. We may, from time to time, be a party to other legal proceedings, which arise in the ordinary course of our business. Although the results of these proceedings, claims, inquiries, and investigations cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not believe that the final outcome of these matters is reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations. Regardless of final outcomes, however, any such proceedings, claims, inquiries, and investigations may nonetheless impose a significant burden on management and employees and may come with significant defense costs or unfavorable preliminary and interim rulings. At this stage of the investigation, the Company believes that a loss is neither probable nor estimable.

IQHQ Alewife Mezzanine Loan Commitment. At September 30, 2026, gross principal outstanding on the IQHQ Alewife Mezzanine Loan was $111.0 million which included $2.5 million of retained origination and underwriting fees, aggregate cash disbursements were $108.5 million, and $134.0 million remained available under the commitment, subject to contractual funding conditions.

Environmental Matters. We follow the policy of monitoring our properties, both targeted acquisition and existing properties, for the presence of hazardous or toxic substances. While there can be no assurance that a material environmental liability does not exist, we are not currently aware of any environmental liabilities that would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flow, or that we believe would require disclosure or the recording of a loss contingency.

On April 25, 2022, a federal securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers. The case was named Michael V. Mallozzi, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Paul Smithers, Catherine Hastings and Andy Bui, Case No. 2-22-cv-02359, and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On September 25, 2024, the district court dismissed the action with prejudice, and on October 15, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal. On October 29, 2025, the appellant filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which was denied on November 13, 2025. Plaintiff did not file a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. This action is concluded.

On January 17, 2025, a second federal securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers. The case was named Alain Giraudon, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Alan D. Gold, Paul E. Smithers, David Smith and Ben Regin, Case No. 1:25-cv-00182-RDB, and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The lawsuit was purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of our common stock and alleges that we and certain of our officers made false or misleading statements regarding our business in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. According to the filed complaint, the plaintiff is seeking an

On June 23, 2025, a Consolidated Class Action Complaint was filed under the same Case Number, adding Catherine Hastings as a defendant, and asserting causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the Consolidated Class Action 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 February 26, 2024 and March 28, 2025. On August 22, 2025, defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, and on October 21, 2025, plaintiff responded with their opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. On November 20, 2025, defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss. On May 27, 2026, the district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the operative complaint without prejudice. On June 26, 2026, plaintiff filed its Second Amended Class Action Complaint. On August 10, 2026, defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint, and on September 24, 2026, plaintiff filed its opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. On October 23, 2026, defendants filed a reply in further support of their motion to dismiss. The motion is fully briefed and remains pending.

It is possible that similar lawsuits may yet be filed in the same or other courts that name the same or additional defendants. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. However, at this time, we cannot predict the probable outcome of this action, and, accordingly, no amounts have been accrued in the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

Five derivative lawsuits were filed related to the Mallozzi federal securities class action discussed above. Four of those derivative actions, two filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland and two filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, were voluntarily dismissed in October 2025 and February 2026 and are concluded. The remaining derivative action related to the Mallozzi class action is described below.

On May 9, 2024, a fifth derivative action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The case was named Gary A Gedig, derivatively on behalf of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. v. Paul Smithers, Catherine Hastings, Ben Regin, Andy Bui, Tracy Hager, Alan Gold, Gary A. Kreitzer, Mary Curran, Scott Shoemaker, M.D., and David Stecher, and Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Civil No. C-24-CV-24-000130, and filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. Plaintiff and defendants in this action filed a Joint Stipulation to Stay the Proceedings, which was granted on July 30, 2024. On April 23, 2026, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss this derivative action. Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss on June 22, 2026, and defendants filed their reply in further support of the motion on July 22, 2026. This derivative action relates to the same allegations as those made in the Mallozzi class action, detailed above, and remains pending.

On February 12, 2025, a derivative action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The case was named Joshua Steffens, derivatively on behalf of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. v. Alan Gold, Paul Smithers, David Smith, Ben Regin, Gary Kreitzer, Gary Stecher, Scott Shoemaker, Mary Allis Curran, and Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Case Number 1:25-cv-00456-ABA, and was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The lawsuit asserts putative derivative claims for violations of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and contribution against the directors and certain officers of the Company. The plaintiffs are seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, an accounting and constructive trust, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On February 18, 2025, the case was reassigned and given Case Number 1:25-cv-00456-GLR. On February 19, 2025, the United States Court for the District of Maryland consolidated Case Nos. 1:25-cv-00469-BAH (detailed below) with case number 1:25-cv-00456-GLR as the lead case, which is stayed. Plaintiff and defendants in this action filed a Joint Stipulation and Order Staying the Consolidated Action, which was granted on March 13, 2025. This derivative action relates to the same allegations as those made in the Giraudon class action, detailed above.

On February 13, 2025, a derivative action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The case was named Joshua Albers, derivatively on behalf of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. v. Alan Gold, Paul Smithers, David Smith, Ben Regin, Gary Kreitzer, Gary Stecher, Scott Shoemaker, Mary Allis Curran, and Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Case Number 1:25-cv-00469-BAH, and was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The lawsuit asserts putative derivative claims for violations of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and contribution against the directors and certain officers of the Company. The plaintiffs are seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, reform, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On February 19, 2025, the United States Court for the District of Maryland consolidated Case Nos. 1:25-cv-00469-BAH with case number 1:25-cv-00456-GLR as the lead case. This

On August 14, 2025 and August 21, 2025, two derivative action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland: Joann Crepaz, derivatively on behalf of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. v. Alan Gold, David Boyle, Mary Curran, Catherine Hastings, Gary Kreitzer, Ben Regin, Scott Shoemaker, David Smith, Paul Smithers, David Stecher, and Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Case Number C-03-CV-25-003997, and Edward Ramos, derivatively on behalf of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. v. Alan Gold, David Boyle, Mary Curran, Catherine Hastings, Gary Kreitzer, Ben Regin, Scott Shoemaker, David Smith, Paul Smithers, David Stecher, and Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Case Number C-03-CV-25-004083. Each complaint asserts putative derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment against certain directors and officers and seeks an undetermined amount of damages, reform, restitution, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On September 18, 2025, the parties filed a joint motion to consolidate the actions, which the court granted on October 23, 2025, designating the Crepaz action as the lead case. These derivative actions relate to the same allegations as those asserted in the Giraudon class action described above and were stayed pending resolution of the Giraudon motion to dismiss, by an order of the Circuit Court of Baltimore County, Maryland that was issued on February 10, 2026.

On November 19, 2025, a derivative action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The case was named James Loen, derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Innovative Industrial Properties v. Alan Gold, Paul Smithers, David Smith, Ben Regin, Gary Kreitzer, Scott Shoemaker, Catherine Hastings, David Stecher, and Mary Curran, Case Number 1:25-cv-03786, and was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The lawsuit asserts putative derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment against the directors and certain officers of the Company. The plaintiff is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, reform, restitution, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On January 23, 2026, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims. On February 3, 2026, the defendants filed a motion to consolidate the Loen lawsuit with the Steffens and Albers consolidated action, 1:25-cv-00456. On February 17, 2026, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation and Order Staying Action pursuant to which the parties agreed to stay the lawsuit until the resolution of the Giraudon class action. The Court granted the motion on February 20, 2026. The stay can be lifted before then by either party with 30 days’ notice.

On October 6, 2026, a derivative action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland. The case was named Shawn Thomas, derivatively on behalf of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. v. Paul Smithers, Alan Gold, Catherine Hastings, David Smith, Ben Regin, Scott Shoemaker, Mary Curran, David Stecher, Gary Kreitzer, and Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Case Number C-03-CV-26-004707. The plaintiff is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, reform of corporate governance and internal procedures, restitution and disgorgement, equitable and injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. This derivative action relates to allegations substantially similar to those asserted in the Giraudon class action described above.

On February 13, 2026, the Company was notified that the SEC is conducting a formal investigation of the Company concerning matters generally similar to those alleged in the Giraudon case and related derivative lawsuits. On the same date, the Company received a subpoena from the Denver Regional Office of the Division of Enforcement of the SEC requesting the production of documents and information related to the investigation. The Company intends to cooperate fully with the SEC.