This bill creates a new chapter in Title 19 RCW that makes it unlawful to enter, enforce, or benefit from private negative-use restrictions on real property that prohibit or limit use as a grocery store, pharmacy, or drug store when those uses would otherwise be allowed under local land use rules. The prohibition applies to recorded or unrecorded instruments (including contracts, deed restrictions, restrictive covenants, leases, and memoranda of lease) and covers limits on use and limits on size. Parties who enter such an agreement must notify the attorney general and the appropriate local jurisdiction within 10 days. The attorney general, cities, towns, and counties (counties only for unincorporated areas) may enforce the chapter in court by seeking declaratory, injunctive, or other remedies; the act affirms that local ordinances imposing civil penalties or other relief are not precluded. Definitions in the bill include “grocery store,” “pharmacy,” “drug store,” and “retail center,” and it references RCW 19.122.020 for the meaning of “force majeure.” The bill establishes exceptions and limited relocations: existing agreements effective before the act remain valid; after a discontinuation of use, a restriction may be enforceable only if a relocated store meets size and distance conditions (generally within two miles, with relocation and reopening within two years) and the prior-site restriction is limited to no more than five years, with special rules for retail centers where enforcement is barred if the use is discontinued for more than one year. Cities, towns, and counties may grant extensions of the distance, time, or term limits (up to five miles or otherwise as stated) upon written request and an evidentiary showing of extenuating circumstances and good cause, with factors such as maintaining access to food and medicine and financing needs listed as relevant. The act contains a severability clause. The act is identified as Engrossed House Bill 2294 and passed both chambers in early 2026. Important implementation details are not provided in the extracted text: the effective date of the act is not stated here, the specific new chapter number in Title 19 RCW is not given, the full content and procedures of section 3 (which governs extensions) are not included, and any required forms or procedures for the 10-day notices are not specified.

If enacted, the bill would make it unsafe for property owners, landlords, and their lawyers to rely on new deed restrictions, leases, or covenants to keep grocery stores, pharmacies, or drug stores out of locations where local zoning would otherwise allow them; such new restrictions would be void and enforceable by the attorney general or local governments. That means grocery and pharmacy operators are more likely to be able to open or relocate into sites without being blocked by newly recorded private restrictions, retail-center owners will have less power to keep competitors out (especially once a use is discontinued for more than a year), and parties who still try to impose such restrictions face legal exposure and a new 10-day notice requirement to the attorney general and the local jurisdiction. Cities, towns, and counties gain new enforcement duties within their boundaries and must consider extension requests from owners or developers who can show good cause (for example to support financing or construction timelines), so local governments may see more administrative requests and discretionary decisions. The act preserves existing pre‑effective-date agreements and allows limited relocation exceptions, but the bill’s effective date, the detailed process for section 3 extensions, and any required notice forms or procedures are not specified in the provided text, leaving some implementation details uncertain.