The California state court case Bronco Wine Company v. Jolly included a fairly in-depth review of state and federal regulatory history of wine. Primary sources are cited throughout the case.

One of the more interesting aspects, apparent though not explicitly discussed in that case, is the timing of the first batch of California state wine regulations. They had been already drafted and finalized by the time the 21st amendment was finally ratified. This tells us that the state had been anticipating repeal, and --as far as one can be with regulations at least-- was raring to get back to it as soon as legally possible.

That said, there is some difficulty with your title wording. Breweries, distilleries, and other alcohol production facilities were literally legitimized by the repeal of prohibition, at least as far as their product was concerned. (They might still be in violation of fire or safety codes, for example.) Once something is legalized, it is legitimate. So, for businesses that were illegal only because they worked with alcohol, they were legitimized from the moment ratification took effect.

Don't forget that alcohol prohibition only lasted for 13 years; marijuana prohibition has lasted much longer. A lot of the infrastructure for distilleries and breweries was already in place. Breweries and distilleries still existed from before, and in some cases made alcoholic beverages for medicinal or other legal purposes.

The end of prohibition was more about getting the old, previously existing infrastructure up and running again. The current situation is much closer to establishing a brand new industry from scratch.

To get right to the heart of your question, Jack Daniel's distillery was sold to bootlegger George Remus during prohibition, then the Daniels family bought it back again after prohibition ended. Source.