Land contracts assigned versus houses assigned: is the compliance risk actually the same animal?

I've been mapping which of the 2025 statutes reach land deals and the drafting isn't consistent. Some definitions of brokerage cover real estate generally, which sweeps in raw acreage. Others read like they were written with somebody's grandmother's three bedroom in mind, occupancy, three day cancellation windows, closings capped at 90 days out under Connecticut's Public Act 25-168, which is effective July 1 2026. A vacant 40 acre parcel with a title problem and an out of state heir does not fit that shape well, and I can't tell whether that means the rules don't apply or whether they apply awkwardly and I find out the hard way.

The practical argument for treating land as the same animal: the trigger in most of these statutes is marketing property you don't own, and dirt is property. Nobody drafting this cared what was standing on it.

The argument that it's different: land deals often need long due diligence, and a 90 day closing cap or a short cancellation window makes assigning a survey-and-entitlement contingent contract close to unworkable. If the rules were built for occupied houses, applying them to acreage produces results the drafters didn't intend, which usually means litigation before it means clarity.

The third view is that the differences are real but irrelevant, because land assignments are so much smaller in volume that no regulator will ever look, and the deals get done on relationships anyway. I don't love that argument. I can't dismiss it either.

How any of this lands on your specific deal is an attorney question in your state. I'm asking how you'd size the risk before you get there.