“Land use” and “zoning” each have different meanings and independent legal significance. Land use is determined by a city or county’s comprehensive plan, which governs the future use of property within the boundaries of the city or unincorporated county. Zoning, on the other hand, represents the current permissible uses of specific properties within a given city or county. In Florida, zoning must not be inconsistent with land use designations. Sometimes, zoning districts are not compatible with an owner’s intended use of his property. In such cases, an amendment or variance may be the best option; or it may not be appropriate and may even conflict with the land use designation in the comprehensive plan. In the event of conflict, a land use amendment would be required; however, seeking a land use amendment is more likely to invite challenge from citizens. For this reason, the process of amending zoning is often less fraught with conflict than amending land use.
Blog
-
Florida’s Bert J. Harris, Jr. Private Property Rights Protection Act
Introduction
Bert J. Harris, Jr. Private Property Rights Protection Act (“Bert Harris Act”), found in Section 70.001, Florida Statutes, was originally enacted in 1995. This law provides that when “a specific action of a governmental entity has inordinately burdened an existing use of real property or a vested right to a specific use of real property, the property owner of that real property is entitled to…compensation for the actual loss to the fair market value of the real property caused by the action of government”.[i] The purpose of the law is to provide for “relief, or payment of compensation, when a new law, rule, regulation, or ordinance of the state or a political entity in the state, as applied, unfairly affects real property.”[ii]
The Bert Harris Act guarantees stronger private property rights than is conferred by the Takings clause in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.[iii] Before the advent of the Bert Harris Act, the only way to seek compensation for loss of market value resulting from government regulation of real property was to assert that it constitutes a “Taking” under an inverse condemnation theory. To prevail on this theory, the property owner would need to show that the government regulation deprived the owner of all beneficial or economically viable use of the property, resulting in substantial loss of market value.[iv] Post Bert Harris, however, a Florida property owner need only show that the government regulation inordinately burdened the existing use or vested right to a specific use of the property.[v] This provides significantly greater protection against government regulations that are burdensome to real property. The italicized terms are specifically defined in the statute and are explained in more detail below.
Inordinate burden
The Bert Harris Act defines “inordinate burden”, in part, to mean a government regulation “that directly restricts or limits the use of real property such that the property owner is permanently unable to attain the reasonable, investment-backed expectation for the existing use of the real property or a vested right to a specific use of the real property with respect to the real property as a whole”.[vi]
To have a right to relief, the government regulation, such as a zoning change, must have been directly applied to the real property owned by the claimant.[vii] A property owner thus cannot sue for the lost value of his/her real property resulting from a regulation applied to an adjacent property.[viii] For example, in Vale v. Palm Beach Cnty., an appeal before the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal, residential property owners sued for Bert Harris Act violations after Palm Beach County rezoned an adjacent golf course and permitted a planned unit development.[ix] Although this development might have reduced their homes’ market value, the Court in Vale held that the Bert Harris Act did not apply.[x] The Court explained that the statute only provides a right to relief where the regulation at issue is directly applied to the claimant’s specific real property.[xi]
There has been limited court interpretation on the meaning of “reasonable, investment-backed expectation”, which is not defined in the statute. The most recent guidance comes from an appellate decision from the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal in the case Ocean Concrete, Inc. v. Indian River Cnty.[xii] The court in Ocean Concrete held that whether expectations are “reasonable” and “investment backed” depends on the physical and regulatory aspects of the property.[xiii] It went on to find that the property owner in the case was reasonable for expecting to use his property for a concrete batch plant, because this was a permitted zoning use when he purchased the property and this use was feasible under the circumstances.[xiv] In contrast, in another appellate matter, City of Jacksonville v. Coffield, the court held that the owner did have a reasonable expectation to develop the property into residential subdivision where no public road connected to the property.[xv]
Existing Use
“Existing Use” is defined in the Bert Harris Act to mean either: (1)“the actual, present use or activity on the real property”; or (2) “activity or such reasonably foreseeable, nonspeculative land uses which are suitable for the subject real property and compatible with adjacent land uses….”[xvi] If a proposed use was permitted by the zoning code prior to the government action, courts will find that this is conclusive evidence that the proposed use is “reasonably foreseeable, nonspeculative”, “suitable for the subject real property,” and “compatible with adjacent land uses”.[xvii]
Vested Right
According to the Bert Harris Act, a vested right is “determined by applying the principles of equitable estoppel or substantive due process under the common law”.[xviii] Under the common law principles of equitable estoppel, a property owner has a vested right if he or she 1) in good faith, 2) upon some act or omission of the government, 3) has made such a substantial change in position or has incurred such extensive obligations and expenses that it would be highly inequitable and unjust to destroy the right he or she acquired.[xix]
Courts will not permit an estoppel claim against a government entity except in exceptional circumstances, and equitable estoppel does not apply to transactions that are forbidden by law or contrary to public policy.[xx] Thus, if a government entity misleads a developer regarding his development rights on real property, the developer will not then be permitted to assert an estoppel claim against the government entity if he purchases the property in reliance on the misrepresentation.[xxi] This is because the property owner is made responsible for knowing the law as it applies to his property, and government misrepresentations about the law cannot change the outcome.
Procedural Considerations
A Bert Harris Act claim must be presented within one year from the time the government action is first applied to the property at issue.[xxii] At least 150 days before filing a lawsuit, written notice of the claim must be given to the appropriate governmental entity.[xxiii] When the pre-suit notice is received, the government has 150 days to consider its options, which include retracting or modifying its action, taking no action, or granting relief in a variety of ways and making an offer to settle.[xxiv]
Conclusion
If you believe that a government action, including but not limited to a zoning regulation, has inordinately burdened an existing use or vested right to a specific use of your real property, you should consult with an attorney to review your options. You may be entitled to substantial compensation for the loss of your property’s market value.
Our firm is prepared to advise you on all options and help you find the best legal course of action. We have experience representing local government entities, which allows for a more complete understanding of both sides of this complex area of law.
Last updated: February 25, 2019
[i] § 70.001(2), Fla. Stat. (2018)
[ii] § 70.001(1)
[iii] § 70.001(9)
[iv] City of Riviera Beach v. Shillingburg, 659 So.2d 1174 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Hadar v. Broward Cnty, No. 16-14569 (11th Cir. 2017); Bakus v. Broward Cnty, 634 So.2d 641 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
[v] § 70.001(2)
[vi] § 70.001(3)(e)
[vii] Vale v. Palm Beach Cnty., No. 4D18-1037 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 21, 2018).
[viii] Id.
[ix] Id.
[x] Id.
[xi] Id.
[xii] 241 So.3d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
[xiii] Id.
[xiv] Id.
[xv] 18 So.3d 589 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).
[xvi] § 70.001(3)(b)
[xvii] Ocean Concrete, Inc., supra
[xviii] § 70.001(3)(a)
[xix] Citrus County v. Halls River Development, 8 So.3d 413 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).
[xx] Id.
[xxi] Id.
[xxii] § 70.001(11)
[xxiii] § 70.001(4)(a)
[xxiv] § 70.001(4)(c)
-
Hello world!
Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!
-
Landmark Victory: Dog Breeder Secures First-Ever Agricultural Classification in Broward County, Setting Statewide Precedent
Abrams Law Firm recently represented a licensed dog breeder from western Broward County at an administrative trial before a value adjustment board special magistrate on April 2, 2025. The case challenged the property appraiser’s denial of an agricultural classification application submitted nearly a year earlier. Until now, no dog breeder in Florida had received approval for agricultural classification.
This case holds particular significance because agricultural classification exempts businesses from local zoning requirements through a legal principle known as “preemption.” Under the Florida Right to Farm Act, agricultural uses are protected from restriction by local zoning regulations.
The magistrate ruled in favor of the petition, determining that the dog breeding operation qualifies as agricultural because it produces animal products that are “useful to humans”, the statutory requirement for agricultural classification. This landmark decision establishes the client as Broward County’s first agriculturally classified dog breeder and potentially among the first in the entire state.
For more information about agricultural classifications or to discuss how this precedent might apply to your business, please contact:
Abrams Law Firm
Phone: (954) 332-2358
Email: admin@abrams-law.com
Website: www.abramslawfirm.comPrincipal Contact: Ryan Abrams, Esq. and Sydney Satz, Esq.
Practice Areas: Agricultural Law, Property Tax Appeals, Land Use & Zoning -
Zoning Due Diligence: A Critical Step in Redevelopment
When purchasing vacant land, commercial, or industrial property for redevelopment, conducting thorough zoning due diligence is essential. Skipping this step can lead to unforeseen complications and delays, jeopardizing the success of your project. Below is a comprehensive guide to ensure your zoning due diligence is both thorough and effective.
Steps for Zoning Due Diligence
- Negotiate a Due Diligence Period
- Secure a 30- to 45-day due diligence period in your purchase agreement. This timeframe allows you to back out of the deal if zoning or other issues arise.
- Research Zoning Entitlements
- Start with the Property Appraiser Website: Locate the property’s zoning district using the GIS map feature. Activate the “Legend” tab and select the zoning overlay to identify the district. For instance, a commercial property might be labeled “GC-2,” which typically indicates a semi-intensive General Commercial zoning district. Sometimes, the property appraiser does not publish zoning information. If so, check the city or county’s website for a zoning GIS map to confirm zoning. In rarer cases, the city or county will not have a GIS map, but instead will have a static PDF map. If this is the case, I recommend requesting a zoning verification letter.
- Consult the Land Development Code: Access the city’s land development code, often hosted on Municode’s website. Search for the zoning code (e.g., “GC-2”) to confirm allowable uses and development restrictions. Note that some cities consolidate allowable uses into a master chart for all zoning districts.
- Verify Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: Check that the zoning district aligns with the comprehensive plan’s future land use designation. In rare cases where inconsistencies exist, a future land use amendment may be required—a process that can take one to two years.
- Check Platting Requirements
- Confirm whether the property has been platted. If not, the city may require platting or re-platting, which can take one to two years. This requirement may also apply to subdivided platted lots.
- Evaluate Lot Size and Setbacks
- Review minimum lot size requirements and setback regulations, including front, side, and rear setbacks. These parameters affect the feasibility of your development plans.
- Obtain an ALTA Survey and Phase 1 Environmental Study
- For vacant land or commercial properties, commission an ALTA survey and a Phase 1 environmental study. These assessments help identify site-specific issues and potential contamination that could hinder development.
- Seek Zoning Verification
- If ambiguities exist in the code, request a zoning verification letter from the local jurisdiction. While this document can clarify how zoning regulations apply to your specific property, it should never be relied upon without independent research. If the city provides incorrect information and the code states otherwise, the verification letter will not serve as a reliable basis. This underscores the importance of thorough due diligence, and why our firm provides value in navigating these complexities.
- Submit a Public Records Request
- Request all development records related to the property, including site plan approvals and development orders. Previous orders may impose restrictions, which are typically recorded and can also be found in the title commitment’s Schedule B2 exceptions.
- Schedule a Pre-Application Meeting
- Arrange a meeting with planning staff to discuss your project. Having an architect prepare a concept plan in advance ensures the feedback you receive is targeted and actionable.
- Review Parking Requirements
- Verify parking requirements in the zoning code. Inadequate parking provisions can derail projects, so ensure your proposed development meets these standards during the due diligence phase.
Conclusion
Conducting zoning due diligence is a critical step in the redevelopment process. By following these steps, you can identify potential hurdles early, mitigate risks, and ensure the viability of your project. Our firm has extensive experience guiding clients through zoning and land use complexities. Contact us to ensure your redevelopment project proceeds smoothly and successfully.
- Negotiate a Due Diligence Period
-
Using Florida’s Land Use Mediation Process: A Smart Alternative to Circuit Court Appeals
When a city or county renders a development order on an entitlement application—such as for a special exception, variance, or rezoning—developers and land use attorneys should strongly consider leveraging the land use mediation process outlined in Florida Statutes §70.51. This approach can provide a cost-effective, creative, and flexible alternative to the traditional circuit court appellate process.
Overview of the Land Use Mediation Process
Under Florida law, land use mediation allows developers to challenge a development order without immediately resorting to filing a writ of certiorari in circuit court. Here’s how the process works:
- Tolling the Appeal Deadline
- Typically, a writ of certiorari appeal must be filed within 30 days of the order being rendered. However, invoking the mediation process under §70.51 tolls (delays) this 30-day deadline, providing up to 180 days to resolve the dispute through mediation.
- Selection of an Independent Magistrate
- Both parties must agree on an independent magistrate to oversee the mediation process. This impartial third party facilitates discussions and, if necessary, provides a formal recommendation.
- Two-Step Process
- Mediation: The parties meet to negotiate a resolution. Discussions during mediation are not public record, ensuring confidentiality, even though the mediation itself is technically open to the public.
- Magistrate Recommendation: If mediation fails to produce a settlement, the magistrate drafts a recommendation for the city or county’s governing body (e.g., the commission). The governing body can either accept or reject this recommendation.
- Option to Resume Circuit Court Appeal
- If the governing body does not alter its position following mediation, the developer or attorney can resume the circuit court appellate process. The mediation process does not waive the right to judicial review.
Benefits of Land Use Mediation
- Flexibility and Creativity
- Unlike a circuit court appeal, which focuses solely on procedural or legal issues, mediation allows parties to craft creative solutions that may not be possible through litigation.
- Extended Timeframe
- Tolling the 30-day appeal deadline provides additional time to negotiate and develop solutions, often reducing the pressure to make hasty decisions.
- Cost Savings
- By avoiding immediate court filings and potentially resolving the dispute without litigation, mediation can save significant legal fees and other associated costs.
- Confidentiality
- Discussions during mediation are shielded from public record, providing a confidential space for negotiations.
When Mediation May Not Be Suitable
While mediation can be a powerful tool, it is not always the best option. For instance:
- Inflexible Parties: If the city or county is unwilling to deviate from its original position due to pressure from an interested party, such as a neighborhood association, mediation may be futile. Interested parties are required to participate in the process and can sometimes derail negotiations.
- Case-by-Case Analysis: The decision to use mediation depends on the specific circumstances of the case, including the likelihood of reaching a mutually agreeable solution.
Conclusion
Florida’s land use mediation process under §70.51 offers a compelling alternative to immediate circuit court appeals. It provides developers and land use attorneys with additional time, confidentiality, and flexibility to resolve disputes creatively and cost-effectively. However, its success depends on the willingness of all parties to engage in good-faith negotiations.
Our firm has successfully utilized this process in past cases, demonstrating its potential to deliver favorable outcomes. If you are facing a development order dispute, contact us to evaluate whether land use mediation is the right approach for your situation.
- Tolling the Appeal Deadline
-
The Live Local Act: Transforming Affordable Housing Development in Florida
In 2023, the Florida Legislature enacted a groundbreaking law known as the Live Local Act, which was further amended in early 2024. This legislation significantly reshapes the landscape of affordable housing development by overriding certain city and county zoning regulations. For developers, this law provides a range of opportunities to construct multifamily residential projects while meeting affordable housing requirements. Below, we explore the key provisions and the incentives that make this law a game-changer for housing in Florida.
Key Provisions of the Live Local Act
- Zoning Overrides
- Multifamily residential developments can now be constructed even in zones where such uses were previously not permitted, provided the project is located in an area zoned for mixed-use, commercial, or industrial purposes.
- To qualify, 40% of the units must be designated as affordable housing, with rental rates capped at 30% of 120% of the area’s median income (AMI). This threshold aligns with workforce housing standards, often close to market rates, making it feasible for developers.
- Projects meeting these criteria must record a 30-year restriction on rents to maintain affordability.
- Increased Density and Height Allowances
- The allowable density for these projects must be at or below the highest density permitted elsewhere within the city.
- Building heights can reach the maximum height authorized in any zoning district within a one-square-mile radius of the project site.
- Transit-Oriented Development
- Projects located within a half-mile of a major transit stop or a quarter-mile of any transit stop (as defined by local ordinance) qualify for additional flexibility.
- Cities and counties must eliminate parking requirements for mixed-use projects situated in transit-oriented corridors, further incentivizing development near public transportation.
- Tax Incentives
- New construction projects with 70 or more affordable units are eligible for a 75% reduction in ad valorem taxes on each affordable unit for up to 30 years.
- Streamlined Approvals
- All qualifying projects must be administratively approved without requiring a public hearing, expediting the approval process and reducing potential obstacles.
Why This Law Makes Affordable Housing Development Attractive
The Live Local Act not only relaxes zoning and development restrictions but also introduces substantial financial incentives, making affordable housing projects in Florida highly attractive. Key advantages include:
- Flexible Unit Mix: Since only 40% of units need to meet affordability criteria, developers have significant latitude to include market-rate units or other uses, creating a more financially viable and profitable project.
- Tax Savings: The 75% ad valorem tax savings for 30 years provides long-term financial benefits for developers and property owners.
- Density and Height Flexibility: The ability to match the highest density and height allowances in the area enables developers to maximize project potential.
- Simplified Approvals: Eliminating the need for public hearings reduces delays and uncertainty, making it easier to get projects off the ground.
Conclusion
The Live Local Act represents a significant shift in Florida’s approach to affordable housing. By overriding restrictive zoning regulations and offering meaningful financial incentives, the law creates a pathway for developers to address housing needs while ensuring projects remain profitable. With its emphasis on transit-oriented development and streamlined processes, the law is poised to reshape communities across Florida and make affordable housing more accessible than ever before.
For developers and stakeholders looking to explore opportunities under this law, our firm provides experienced guidance to navigate the complexities of land use, zoning, and entitlement processes. Contact us today to learn how we can assist in making your project a success under the Live Local Act.
- Zoning Overrides
-
Art of the Acquisition – How to Buy or Sell a Business
There are three primary ways to structure the purchase or sale of a business: asset purchase, stock purchase, or merger. Each has distinct advantages and disadvantages for the buyer and seller, respectively. A qualified M&A (mergers and acquisitions) attorney will help you decide which structure is best suited for your needs.
Methods
An asset purchase is where some or all of the assets of a company are purchased by a buyer. An acquisition agreement is negotiated and executed by the parties, setting forth a due diligence period and a closing date, similar to a real estate transaction. The agreement will specifically list the assets and liabilities being purchased by the prospective buyer. The result after closing is the buyer ends up with only the specific assets and liabilities listed in the acquisition agreement.
A merger is where a target company is merged with a purchasing company, or vice versa. Just as with an asset purchase, there will be a transaction agreement and a due diligence period, but there are procedures that must be followed for a plan of merger to be approved by the shareholders of the target company and shareholders of purchasing company. There are different types of mergers, and it can get complicated. Suffice it to say that the target company can either merge with the purchasing company, thereby extinguishing the legal existence of the target company; or alternatively, the purchasing company can merge with the target company, thereby extinguishing the legal existence of the purchasing company. The result in either case is the merged company ends up with all of the assets and liabilities of the target company.
A stock purchase is a third way to structure an acquisition. This is accomplished through a stock purchase agreement and there is also a due diligence period. With a stock purchase, the buyer seeks to gain ownership of all of the target company’s shares. The purchasing company would then own all of the target company’s assets and liabilities, making the target company its wholly owned subsidiary. A risk with this transaction is that all shareholders may not sign off on the sale or exchange of their stock, although the deal can be structured to avoid this result.
Pros and Cons of Each Method
The structure of the purchase can be a subject of intense negotiations between the buyer and seller, because each structure type has varying advantages and disadvantages for each the buyer and seller.
An asset purchase is generally the preferred structure for the buyer because, if done properly, it eliminates the risk of taking on hidden liabilities of the target company, and it also generally provides superior tax advantages for the buyer. The primary tax advantage is that it allows the buyer to claim a ‘stepped-up basis’ in those assets with appreciating value, which generally will reduce the buyer’s tax burden. However, an asset purchase is a less attractive option for a seller that files as a C Corporation, because it can result in double taxation. This is because the C Corporation would be taxed for a liquidation at the corporate level, and the amounts distributed to shareholders would be taxed again as capital gains. The Seller also could be subject to taxes on deprecation recapture on some of the assets sold. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a lengthy discussion on tax law is beyond the scope of this article.
On the other hand, mergers and stock purchases are generally preferable for Sellers for three reasons. First, the Seller usually desires to sell its entire business because it is a simpler process. Second, the Seller does not have to worry about continuing liabilities, or how to dispose of assets not purchased by the buyer. Third, mergers and stock purchases provide tax advantages for the seller, including the avoidance of the double taxation problem for C Corporations and the avoidance of paying taxes on depreciation recapture. The tax consequences should be more thoroughly analyzed with the assistance of a qualified CPA. Your attorney in the transaction will probably recommend bringing in other experts where appropriate to help guide the process so that you receive the greatest benefit for your bargain.
Conclusion
There’s a lot to consider when thinking about selling or buying a business. Ryan A. Abrams, Esq. is skilled in M&A transactions, and can guide you the process so that you only have to worry about the business side of things. Call us today.
