Realtor® Attorney Joint Committee

Zoned Out: Property Owners Do Not Have Constitutional Right to Preserve Zoning Designation

By: Ben Sorrell, Esq. Associate Attorney, Syprett Meshad, P.A.

As you may know, four petitions have been submitted to Sarasota County seeking amendments to the County’s Comprehensive Plan for development on Siesta Key. The proposals ask the Commission to change the future land use for the areas in question to allow for more dense development by expanding the current height and density restrictions. This begs the question: what rights do the neighboring landowners have in preserving the current zoning designation?

ZONING DESIGNATIONS

Put simply, Federal Courts throughout Florida have held that property owners do not have a vested constitutional right that a particular zoning designation remain constant, whether that be their own property’s designation or that of a neighboring property.1 Local authorities enact and modify zoning ordinances under its police powers. Thus, zoning authorities pretty much have free reign to change a property’s zoning designation (on its own or via an application by a property owner) as long as the change is substantially related to the promotion of the public health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community.2 Because zoning is a legislative function, courts will rarely disturb the local zoning authority’s findings unless it can be proven that the zoning authority acted arbitrarily or capriciously in approving or denying a zoning request.

RE-ZONING

In an old Florida Supreme Court case,3 similar to the situation evolving in Siesta Key, a property owner sought to amend the City of Miami’s comprehensive plan to allow for the construction of multi-unit residences. The property had previously been vacant and zoned single-family. Neighboring landowners objected to this re-zone by arguing the amendment to the comprehensive plan was invalid because it resulted in alleged depreciation in value of their neighboring residence. The Court rejected this argument recognizing that local zoning authorities have broad discretion to re-zone lands and stated the general rule that neighboring property owners have no vested right in adjoining land use designations.

Whether the applications submitted to the County will be successful remains to be seen, and opposition is already fierce, but the basic criteria set forth herein will apply to the County’s ultimate decision. •

Sources: 1 | Sarasota County v. Walker, 144 So. 2d 345, 348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962) (“No one has a vested right to require a zoning classification to remain constant, especially in an area of growth and changed conditions.”); Villas of Lake Jackson, Ltd. v. Leon County, 884

F. Supp. 1544, 1567 (N.D. Fla. 1995); McGee v. City of Cocoa, 168

So. 2d 766, 769 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964) (“vested rights in a particular zoning ordinance do not accrue to neighboring owners.”); City of Lauderdale Lakes v. Corn, 427 So. 2d 239, 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (“[a]n owner of property acquires no vested rights in the continuation of existing zoning or land use regulations as to such property”); Charlotte County v. Vetter, 863 So. 2d 465, 469 (Fla. 2d

DCA 2004) (“the purchase of land does not create a right to rely on the existing zoning.”); 2 | Florida E. Coast Ry. Co. v. City of W. Palm Beach, 266 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2001); Davis v. Sails, 318 So. 2d 214, 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). 3 | Oka v. Cole, 145 So.2d 233 (Fla. 1962).

This article is meant for educational purposes only. It is not intended to serve as legal advice and should not be used as a substitute for consultation with an attorney.