Kant thought that the answer is yes, see ought implies can (OIC):"The action to which the "ought" applies must indeed be possible under natural conditions" [A548/B576]. Moore, and many others, accepted Kant's dictum, for we “cannot say of anyone that he ought to do a certain thing, if it is a thing which it is physically impossible for him to do” (1922: 317).
But, OIC does not contradict no ought from is, as Hume meant it, because can not is not derivable from an (empirical) is either. In the relevant passage, Hume does not seem to be objecting to the idea that one ought not to do the logically impossible, for example, nor does he prohibit deriving oughts from ises in principle, but rather asks for an explanation of how it is done.
"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it."
Whether deriving analytic ought nots from analytic can nots (to use Kant's terminology) by OIC is a good enough explanation, Hume does not get an occasion to say. Kant himself accepted no ought from is together with OIC, for synthetic statements, which is why he supplied synthetic a priori oughts, such as the categorical imperative, to fill the gap. It was the same solution that he offered to the Hume's objections to causality.
However, modern experiments show that "the folk" simply reject the OIC principle, as do many moral skeptics, see SEP's Skepticism About Moral Responsibility.
"Buckwalter and Turri (2015), Mizrahi (2015a,b), Chituc et al. (2016), Henne et al. (2016), and Turri (2017) have all run experiments testing ordinary “folk” intuitions about the link between moral requirements and abilities. They each independently found that commonsense morality rejects the OIC principle for moral requirements, and that judgments about moral obligations are made independently of considerations about ability. By contrast, they also found that judgments of blame were highly sensitive to considerations about ability, which suggests that commonsense morality might accept a “blame implies can” principle or that judgments of blame may play a modulatory role in judgments of obligation (see Buckwalter & Turri 2015; Chituc et al. 2016). These empirical findings support Waller’s claim that the OIC principle is a philosopher’s invention infected by mistaken assumptions about moral responsibility."
Still, the motivation may partly come from concerns about "gaming" the loophole, as in "I just couldn't do it" excuses, hence the acceptance of blame implies can. In that case, the OIC still applies to genuine impossibilities, which today include those from non-analytic conceptions, such as Kripke's. These would presumably produce limitations on no ought from is, assuming one accepts deriving can nots from ises somehow. Kripke's necessary a posteriori come to mind, "you ought not make water not be H2O" would be an example.