Not so much legal fees. The local cellular operators tend to hire real estate brokers and such to deal with the local governments. They're less expensive than lawyers and are more knowledgeable about local alternative sites, site rental fees, and property costs. Intentional delays that bordered on extortion became such a problem that the FCC was forced to require a time limit for acting on proposed sites new site and modifications.
It's not just municipal governments that slow things down. Local citizens groups that fear the proliferation of RF belching towers also create delays. For example, this is our local citizens groups: The Boulder Creek site was never built, but no because of the efforts of this group. It was due to the county demanding specific basic documents from the Verizon representative, which were not produced.
I has several discussions with the Verizon people about this site and others that were planned locally, which taught me a few things. For example, at the time, Verizon had about 1500 new sites in various stages of planning in Northern California. Most of these sites are not for new coverage, but are to increase bandwidth and capacity in areas that already have service. New sites require some minimum prospective user density to be considered worthwhile, which is a problem for areas with transient usage. For example, a rather large lake in the area has nearly zero cellular coverage, despite a large influx of cell phone users during the summer. Because the area is essentially empty during the remaining 9 months of the year, it's probably not going to be profitable investment.
Verizon also takes the path of least resistance. If there's any impediments caused by government or citizen groups and can't seem to be resolved, Verizon just moves on to another more hospitable area. The previously mentioned lake owners/operators offered to pay Verizon for installing a site to compensate for the limited revenue. I don't know if that worked.
Another expensive problem is camouflaged towers, which roughly doubles the cost of the tower. Yet another is the time involved in crafting local tower ordinances, no two of which are identical. I was involved in the passage of the Santa Cruz CA county tower ordinance, which in my never humble opinion was a giant mess. You really don't want to know what is involved in making sausage and tower ordinances. Incidentally, we were saved by the local coastal commission. They took our best efforts, cleaned it up dramatically, and actually produced a readable and workable ordinance. Other cities and counties often use the time needed to create such ordinance as a way of delaying the introduction of new towers.
If you want to slosh through the politics, reading back issues of AGL (Above Ground Level) magazine should be instructive:
I can go on forever on tower politics, but I'm already late for a lunch time meeting.