Right. So the thing about a movie is you can build it anywhere it fits, whereas a building has to be built where people want it. I know one producer who took a script set in Santa Fe, NM (land of massive incentives) and had it rewritten to shoot in London because it worked out to be cheaper due to assorted bullshit 1-time things.

The other thing about a movie is if you can get away with it, you got away with it. Lars von Trier took one look at the permitting process in and around Seattle and decided to steal every.single.shot in Dancer in the Dark. As in, didn't even tell the film office he was in town. Permitted nothing.

Shooting in Los Angeles, everyone is hypersensitive to how much money you can make squeezing productions for cash (and how many productions will absolutely trample you if given half a chance). Buddy shot a commercial in his loft when he was in grad school. His landlord noticed he had a lot of people parking on the street. She blackmailed him for $6k so she didn't call the film office and have them crack down for $20k in fines. Compare and contrast: you can lock off entire streets in Bangkok by giving the local cops a pizza and 20 bucks.

With a building, it takes a long time to build and will be there for a long time after. There's plenty of time and plenty of process for enforcement. With a film, the violation may be gone an hour later and once it's in the can there's no evidence, really, of any wrongdoing. So people sneak shit all the time. Less so if it's a full Union pop production, but like I said, most indie films aren't. I've got shit at Walmart you could go buy right now where nobody (except me) made more than $100. I've got shit on SyFy where the entity that profited the most was SAG.