City refuses to issue permits - says to demolish non-conforming CBS buildings

[sonny26]

I have a 19 unit apartment complex in Florida. The property consists of two buildings, 9 units in one and 10 units in the other. The property was foreclosed in 2007, and has been vacant since. I purchased it at the end of 2010. The property is non-conforming use.

The building department is stating the property must be bought up to today's building code. They further state the current code requires 2 parking spots per unit, for a total requirement of 38 spots. There is no additional space to add that many parking spots (it could probably fit 19 spots). Additionally, the current code only allows 8 units on this size lot (about 1/2 acre).

There are no public records stating anything of that sort from the building department.

At this point, the building department and zoning department states it would be cheaper to demolish the existing buildings and rebuild a 8 unit building on the lot.

The building does not need any major repairs. It only needs cosmetics (kitchen cabinets, etc). It is a CBS structure. The electrical inspector with the building department came out and inspected the electric and said everything is fine, but the chief building official refuses to issue a permit.

The building is in the CRA district (redevelopment area). Code Compliance states fines will incur if the propery is not repaved and painted on the outside, but the building department refuses to issue any permits on the property.

Is there anything I can do to keep all 19 units? Is the city allowed to refuse a permit (for cosmetics - kitchen cabinets, etc) in this case because it's a non-conforming building?

I know of several other properties close by that are non-conforming, vacant for over a year, which have the same situation, but the city has issued permits to them without a problem (they are not in the CRA district).

Also, they state the property is on the city's danger list and was scheduled to be demolished by the city. Prior to purchasing, code compliance said it just needs to be repaved and painted.

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? FL

[HomeGuru]

I have a 19 unit apartment complex in Florida. The property consists of two buildings, 9 units in one and 10 units in the other. The property was foreclosed in 2007, and has been vacant since. I purchased it at the end of 2010. The property is non-conforming use.

The building department is stating the property must be bought up to today's building code. They further state the current code requires 2 parking spots per unit, for a total requirement of 38 spots. There is no additional space to add that many parking spots (it could probably fit 19 spots). Additionally, the current code only allows 8 units on this size lot (about 1/2 acre).

There are no public records stating anything of that sort from the building department.

At this point, the building department and zoning department states it would be cheaper to demolish the existing buildings and rebuild a 8 unit building on the lot.

The building does not need any major repairs. It only needs cosmetics (kitchen cabinets, etc). It is a CBS structure. The electrical inspector with the building department came out and inspected the electric and said everything is fine, but the chief building official refuses to issue a permit.

The building is in the CRA district (redevelopment area). Code Compliance states fines will incur if the propery is not repaved and painted on the outside, but the building department refuses to issue any permits on the property.

Is there anything I can do to keep all 19 units? Is the city allowed to refuse a permit (for cosmetics - kitchen cabinets, etc) in this case because it's a non-conforming building?

I know of several other properties close by that are non-conforming, vacant for over a year, which have the same situation, but the city has issued permits to them without a problem (they are not in the CRA district).

Also, they state the property is on the city's danger list and was scheduled to be demolished by the city. Prior to purchasing, code compliance said it just needs to be repaved and painted.

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? FL

**A: you need to hire an attorney that specializes in building code and zoning issues.

[FlyingRon]

HG is right, you need a lawyer. Yes, the acceptance of the non-conforming use by the previous owner does not necessarily extend to you.

[John_DFW]

If your efforts to keep both buildings fail, it may be possible to demolish one of the buildings and convert the other to 8 units. You may be able to convert some of that space into a larger unit or storage space.

Note that it may or may not be cheaper to demolish both and start over from scratch.

[xylene]

Code and zoning enforcement are there to enforce laws.

They are not interested in helping to come to a compromise position so that you can make money or break even on your real estate speculation / investment.

You need a kick ass lawyer, because your position is weak right now.

They just don't have to care if you had incomplete information, take a loss, or how similar cases were resolved.

[FarmerJ]

depending on lay out id say if you can convert 19 into 16 depending on layout (if stacked and two story) maybe by splitting second floor units and creating two story but 4 or 5 br units with addition of stairs going up inside ground floor unit you may be able to actually retain those tenants longer since larger units are harder to find. (if units are all on one level then going sideways eliminating units and creating larger units that way would do it, It is pretty hard to fight no conforming use but remodeling to get larger units and reduce each building to 8 units each should be giving the city what they want with out doing total tear down, of course it would be a good time while doing such change to explore submetering for any util that is included with the rent since it would give you a easy way to recover util expenses. the multi unit that I owner occupied I split one apt on second floor adding rear half to mine by re opening a stair way doorway that had been closed and going through a common wall upstairs and adding two rooms to the other second floor unit to make a 3 br instead of a 1 up there , rent terms changed to have tenant pay own heat and hot w and cook , larger unit that was easier to keep rented and in end reduced my turn over. Seriously explore that route and if on central hot water heating either submeter the new units hot and cold or take advantage and install individual hot water heating for new unit as well as address heating issues (unless building is so far south in FL that each units heat need is so low that they already have electric heat) it would take a few yrs to get the money back but with tenants who may be inclined to stay on longer in larger units it should balance out nicely against the cost of wear and tear from turn overs and unit prep. (as well as possibly giving you a chance to create a wait list of people who are seeking larger units further reducing turn over time)

[justalayman]

I don't know if it is applicable in the OP's situation but I know of several areas that a non-conforming use loses it's exemption once the non-conforming use has been abandoned for more than 1 year. Since these units have been vacant since 2007, that could be a concern here.

That could be the justification behind requiring the unit be brought to current, and conforming, code status.

This is all something the OP should have researched prior to purchasing.

Is the city allowed to refuse a permit (for cosmetics - kitchen cabinets, etc) in this case because it's a non-conforming building?

that is a possibility. It would be based on your local laws.

I know of several other properties close by that are non-conforming, vacant for over a year, which have the same situation, but the city has issued permits to them without a problem (they are not in the CRA district).

then use that as your basis for your argument. Of course, since this is in a redevelopment area and the others not, that argument may be totally worthless. Your local codes will rule.

[sonny26]

The city is telling me the building is unsafe and on the "danger" list. However, there are no public records to indicate that.

Additionally, there is a public record by the building department for "Notice of Pending Administrative Action". Then a release of that notice two months later. The city is telling me that this notice was because the property was not secured/boarded.

My question is: If this city is filing a notice in public records to have the place boarded, shouldn't they file a notice for the building being unsafe/on the danger list?

Again, there are no public records regarding it being "unsafe" or on the "danger" list.

Just recently, there was a news story regarding a 30 +/- unit apartment complex that got government funding to rehab, but was never rehabbed. In the news story, it said it's sad because this city needs the affordable housing...which is what my property is.

Furthermore, I have been told by multiple people (including multiple government officals) that the city police department does not want that building to be opened again. What right does the police department have on saying whether a building should be opened or not?

What kind of chance to I have winning the case if I file suit against the city?

[justalayman]

sonny26;2728880]The city is telling me the building is unsafe and on the "danger" list. However, there are no public records to indicate that

the tell them to produce the engineers report that documents why it is unsafe.


they cannot simply take some self righteous action and condemn a building without support for that action.

[FarmerJ]

Yup condemnation is based on evidence , owner refusal to secure property, a huge laundry list of little things combines like mechanical failures in each unit , or major repairs that impact entire structure like failed sewage or water services or structural issues like building sinking , there has to be something other than vacancy, now board up in many cities for too long constitutes loss of non conforming use and requires new code compliance so Id say your at a point that if you cannot find any thing else that is anywhere in public records related to building inspections reports and NO one forced a board up by assigning the job to city county workers thats something a atty can help you argue while you present plans to remodel the two buildings including reconfiguring the units into larger units.