Florida Senate Bill 840: The Current Status of Controversial SB 180 and Proposed Legislative Changes

In 2025, Florida enacted Senate Bill 180 as a sweeping response to post-hurricane recovery obstacles. The law limited the ability of counties and municipalities to adopt or enforce certain land use regulations during defined recovery periods, including moratoria, comprehensive plan amendments, land development regulations, and permitting processes. These restrictions applied both statewide and within federally declared disaster areas, fundamentally altering the balance between state oversight and local land use authority during disaster recovery.

Since taking effect, SB 180 has generated significant legal and practical questions.[1] Multiple lawsuits challenge its scope and constitutionality, while local governments, property owners, and developers continue to navigate uncertainty over how long the restrictions apply and which actions remain permissible. In response to these concerns, the Florida Legislature revisited the issue during the 2026 session.

Florida Senator Nick DiCeglie introduced Senate Bill 840, titled “An act relating to land use regulations for local governments affected by natural disasters.” SB 840 does not repeal SB 180. Instead, it proposes targeted amendments to section 252.422, Florida Statutes, and to the Session Law provisions codified in Chapter 2025-190, Laws of Florida. The proposed changes focus on refining when post-disaster limitations apply, clarifying enforcement mechanisms, and adjusting statutory timelines tied to hurricane recovery.

This article explains the current legal status of SB 180 and examines how SB 840 would modify the existing framework if enacted, with particular attention to how the proposed language could affect local governments, property owners, and development activity throughout Florida.

What Legal Challenges Have Been Filed Against SB 180?

Since its enactment, SB 180 has been the subject of multiple lawsuits filed in Florida courts, challenging the statute’s validity and scope. These actions have been brought primarily by local governments and community planning organizations, including suits associated with 1000 Friends of Florida, asserting that SB 180 unlawfully restricts local land use authority and conflicts with constitutional and statutory provisions governing comprehensive planning and home rule.[2]

The complaints generally allege that SB 180 exceeds permissible state preemption, improperly nullifies duly adopted local comprehensive plan provisions and land development regulations, and applies retroactively in a manner that disrupts vested local planning processes.

As of early January 2026, these cases remain pending. No court has entered a final judgment invalidating SB 180 in whole or in part, and no statewide injunction has been issued that would suspend the law’s enforcement across Florida. Absent judicial invalidation or legislative amendment, SB 180 continues to operate according to its statutory and session-law terms.

Why Was Senate Bill 840 Introduced?

Although SB 180 remains in effect, the scope and duration of its restrictions have been the subject of ongoing litigation and public debate. As discussed above, multiple lawsuits challenge the statute’s breadth and its impact on local planning authority, but those cases are still pending and do not provide immediate clarity for local governments, property owners, or developers seeking to operate under the law.

Against that backdrop, SB 840 was introduced as a legislative response to the uncertainty created by SB 180’s current framework. Legislative analyses and public materials reflect concerns that SB 180 may extend beyond post-hurricane reconstruction and restrict local land use decisions that are not directly tied to repairing or rebuilding hurricane-damaged improvements. Questions have also been raised about how long the restrictions apply, which local actions are prohibited, and how enforcement should operate while court challenges remain unresolved.

Rather than repealing SB 180 outright, SB 840 proposes targeted amendments intended to narrow the statute’s application, clarify when and how the restrictions apply, and better align state-level limitations with hurricane-related reconstruction activities. In this way, SB 840 represents an effort to provide a more immediate and predictable statutory framework while litigation over SB 180 continues.

How Would SB 840 Amend Section 252.422 Compared to SB 180?

Senate Bill 840 proposes targeted amendments to section 252.422, Florida Statutes, that materially narrow and clarify the Emergency Management restrictions enacted under SB 180. Rather than repealing the statute, SB 840 revises its geographic scope, its substantive prohibitions, and the type of development activity subject to regulation during the recovery period.

Change to the Impacted Local Government Area Radius

Under SB 180, an “impacted local government” was defined by reference to counties included in a federal disaster declaration that lay wholly or partially within 100 miles of the track of a hurricane. SB 840 reduces that radius, as an “impacted local government” would be defined more narrowly and with additional criteria.

The term would apply to a county that lies wholly or partially within 50 miles of the track of a storm declared a hurricane by the National Hurricane Center and that is listed in a federal major disaster declaration issued pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121 et seq.[3]

This revision would significantly narrow the geographic reach of section 252.422 by imposing more stringent qualifying criteria. Under the amended language, a storm would be required to be formally declared a hurricane by the National Hurricane Center and to be included in a federal major disaster declaration. By adding these requirements, the statute, in theory, would apply only to jurisdictions directly affected by federally recognized hurricane events, rather than to areas experiencing indirect or minimal impacts.

Narrowing of Prohibited Local Government Actions

SB 180 broadly restricted impacted local governments from adopting or enforcing moratoria, comprehensive plan amendments, land development regulations, or procedures that were more restrictive than those in effect before the hurricane. SB 840 revises this approach by tying the prohibitions more directly to hurricane-related damage and reconstruction.

As amended, section 252.422 would apply only to actions that prevent or delay the repair or reconstruction of existing improvements damaged by the hurricane. Specifically, for one year after landfall, an impacted local government may not:

• Enforce a moratorium that prevents or delays the repair or reconstruction of an existing improvement damaged by such hurricane, unless the moratorium is necessary to complete stormwater, floodwater, potable water supply, or sanitary sewer repairs;[4]
• Require the repair or reconstruction of an existing improvement damaged by such hurricane to comply with comprehensive plan amendments or land development regulations that became effective after the hurricane;[5] or
• Enforce a change to procedures concerning, review, approval, or issuance of a site plan, development permit, or development order which is effective after a hurricane makes landfall, which increases the timeframe for the impacted local government to take final action on such review, approval, or issuance.[6] It is worth noting that this new language provides a subjective ‘safe harbor’ of sorts, allowing impacted local governments to change procedures if the procedural updates do not increase the time to take final action.

This language departs from SB 180 by focusing exclusively on reconstruction of hurricane-damaged improvements, rather than restricting local regulation of development activity more generally during the recovery period.

Practical Effect of the Amendments

If enacted, SB 840 would recalibrate section 252.422 in two meaningful ways. First, it would reduce the number of counties and municipalities subject to the statute by shrinking the impact zone from 100 miles to 50 miles. Second, it would limit the statute’s substantive reach to regulations that affect the repair and reconstruction of hurricane-damaged property, rather than extending to unrelated development proposals or long-term planning decisions.

In contrast to SB 180’s broader framework, SB 840 would preserve state-level protections for post-hurricane rebuilding, while restoring greater regulatory discretion to local governments outside the immediate storm impact area and beyond the scope of hurricane-related reconstruction.

Are There Exceptions Allowing Local Government Action Under SB 840?

Yes. SB 840 preserves and clarifies several exceptions under which an impacted local government may proceed with regulatory action. The statute would allow enforcement where:

• The application was initiated by a private party and applies to property owned by that party;
• The proposed comprehensive plan amendment or land development regulation is approved by the state land planning agency for an area of critical state concern[7];
• The regulation is required to comply with state or federal law; or
• The regulation implements floodplain management standards consistent with the National Flood Insurance Program.

These exceptions are intended to ensure that the statute does not interfere with compliance obligations imposed by higher levels of government or with development actions voluntarily initiated by property owners.

Additional Hurricane Disaster Documentation Requirements

In addition, SB 840 narrows the scope of the prohibitions in paragraphs (2)(b) and (c) by limiting their application to property that is damaged to such an extent that a permit is required for repair or reconstruction of the existing improvement. The bill expressly authorizes an impacted local government to require a property owner to provide documentation demonstrating that the damage was caused by a hurricane.

Acceptable documentation may include materials produced by property appraisers, insurers, or local building inspectors. This evidentiary requirement introduces an additional reporting component and allows local governments to verify that the statutory protections apply only to qualifying hurricane-related damage, rather than to unrelated renovation or redevelopment activity.

What Enforcement Provisions Would SB 840 Remove?

SB 840 proposes to strike the existing enforcement framework currently contained in section 252.422, Florida Statutes. The removed language governs who may bring suit, how disputes reach the courts, and what remedies are available during litigation. As proposed, SB 840 deletes the following components in their entirety.

First, the bill removes the provision authorizing any person to file suit against an impacted local government for declaratory and injunctive relief to enforce the statute. Under the current law, this language establishes broad standing and allows affected parties to seek a court declaration regarding compliance, as well as an injunction preventing enforcement of an unlawful action.

Second, SB 840 eliminates the provision allowing a county or municipality to request a judicial determination of compliance. Under the existing statute, a local government may seek a ruling from a court of competent jurisdiction on whether a proposed action violates section 252.422. While that request is pending, the local government is prohibited from enforcing the challenged action until the court issues a preliminary or final judgment. The proposed amendment removes this mechanism entirely, eliminating the option for local governments to obtain advance judicial guidance before enforcement.

Third, the bill deletes the mandatory pre-suit notice and cure process. Current law requires a plaintiff to notify the impacted local government of the alleged violation and provide a fourteen-day opportunity to withdraw, revoke, or declare the action void before filing suit. If the local government fails to cure within that period, the plaintiff may file suit and is entitled to a preliminary injunction preventing implementation of the challenged action during litigation. SB 840 removes both the notice requirement and the associated automatic entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief.

Fourth, SB 840 strikes the statutory entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs for prevailing plaintiffs. Under existing law, a successful plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in an action brought to enforce section 252.422. Removal of this provision could shift litigation costs back to private parties and eliminate a statutory fee shifting mechanism.

Finally, the bill removes the requirement that actions brought under the statute proceed under the summary procedure set forth in section 51.011, Florida Statutes. Current law entitles all parties to expedited proceedings and requires courts to advance such cases on their calendars. Deleting this language would place enforcement actions on the standard civil docket, subject to ordinary scheduling and procedural timelines.

Taken together, these proposed deletions would substantially alter how section 252.422 operates in practice. While the substantive prohibitions on certain post hurricane regulations would remain, SB 840 would remove the statute’s specialized enforcement tools, expedited procedures, and cost shifting provisions. Enforcement would instead depend on general principles of civil litigation, without statutory guarantees of injunctive relief, fee recovery, or accelerated judicial review.

How SB 840 Would Eliminate the Post-Disaster Reporting and Oversight Requirement

In addition to revising enforcement and geographic applicability, SB 840 proposes to remove the statutory reporting and oversight provision that was included in SB 180.

Under the existing session law, the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) is directed to conduct a statewide study of local government actions taken after hurricanes that relate to comprehensive plans, land development regulations, and procedures for the review, approval, or issuance of site plans, permits, and development orders. The statute requires OPPAGA to evaluate how moratoria, ordinances, and procedural changes have affected construction, reconstruction, and redevelopment of hurricane-damaged property. It further directs OPPAGA to survey stakeholders involved in disaster recovery and to make legislative recommendations aimed at removing impediments to rebuilding and preventing the adoption of burdensome or restrictive local procedures.

SB 840 proposes to strike this reporting mandate in its entirety. If enacted, the legislation would remove the requirement for OPPAGA to study post-hurricane local government actions or to issue findings and recommendations regarding their impact on recovery efforts.

The removal of this provision would eliminate a formal, statewide data-gathering and oversight mechanism tied to hurricane recovery land use regulation. Without the OPPAGA study, there may be no statutorily required assessment of how local moratoria, plan amendments, or permitting procedures affect rebuilding timelines, costs, or redevelopment feasibility following major storms. Any future legislative action in this area may therefore rely on ad hoc reporting, litigation outcomes, or policy proposals rather than a centralized post-disaster analysis mandated by statute.

How SB 840 Would Change the Duration of the Session Law Moratorium

Under SB 180, the session law moratorium contained in Section 28 of Chapter 2025-190, Laws of Florida, applied retroactively to August 1, 2024. The bill text originally contemplated that the moratorium on new or more restrictive local regulations would remain in effect through October 1, 2027. However, as published in the session laws, Section 28 includes an express expiration date of June 30, 2028, creating a longer outer boundary for the provision’s operation.[8]

SB 840 proposes to shorten this timeframe. As drafted, the bill would amend the session law to provide that the moratorium terminates June 30, 2026. If enacted, this change would significantly reduce the duration of the restrictions imposed under SB 180 by ending the session law limitations approximately two years earlier than the expiration date currently reflected in Chapter 2025-190.

In effect, SB 840 would preserve the retroactive start date of August 1, 2024, but would substantially accelerate the end of the moratorium period. This revision would narrow the window during which local governments are restricted from adopting or enforcing certain land use regulations and procedures under the session law, restoring local regulatory authority sooner than under SB 180 as published.

When Would SB 840 Take Effect if Enacted?

SB 840 includes an express effective date, providing that the act would take effect on July 1, 2026. If enacted, the amendments to section 252.422, Florida Statutes, and the revisions to the Session Law provisions in Chapter 2025-190, Laws of Florida, would not become operative until that date.

The timing of this effective date is significant because SB 840 also proposes to shorten the duration of the Session Law moratorium. As drafted, the moratorium would terminate on June 30, 2026, one day before the act’s effective date. This sequencing would result in the expiration of the existing moratorium before the revised statutory framework takes effect.

If enacted without further amendment, this structure would effectively allow the Session Law moratorium created by SB 180 to expire according to the shortened timeline, while the substantive amendments to section 252.422 would not become operative until the following day. In that circumstance, the statutory landscape governing post hurricane land use regulation would shift based on the expiration of the existing moratorium rather than the immediate operation of the amended provisions.

What the Proposed Amendments Would Mean Going Forward

Taken together, the amendments proposed in SB 840 reflect a legislative attempt to recalibrate the balance created by SB 180 between state level disaster recovery objectives and local land use authority. Rather than eliminating post hurricane restrictions altogether, the bill would narrow when those limits apply, reduce the number of jurisdictions subject to them, and remove several procedural and enforcement mechanisms that made the original statute unusually forceful in practice.

If enacted, SB 840 would shift the focus of section 252.422 away from broad development regulation and toward a more limited set of circumstances involving documented hurricane damage that requires permitted repair or reconstruction. The revised definition of impacted local government would confine application to counties and municipalities directly affected by federally declared hurricanes within a reduced geographic radius. At the same time, the elimination of automatic injunctions, fee shifting, summary procedure, and declaratory enforcement provisions would place disputes back into the framework of ordinary civil litigation.

The proposed changes to the Session Law moratorium would further narrow the scope and duration of state-imposed limitations on local planning authority. By shortening the moratorium period and removing statewide reporting and oversight requirements, SB 840 would restore local regulatory discretion sooner and reduce the likelihood of extended post disaster preemption.

For local governments, property owners, and developers alike, SB 840 would introduce a more defined and time limited regulatory environment. While hurricane related reconstruction would remain protected from certain post disaster regulatory barriers, broader development and planning decisions would be less constrained by state level intervention.

Potential Negative Implications of the SB 840 Amendments

Although SB 840 is framed as a refinement of the framework established by SB 180, the proposed amendments could also alter several structural features that currently shape how post-hurricane land use restrictions are applied and enforced in Florida.

Beyond narrowing geographic scope and shortening statutory timelines, the bill would change how disputes are resolved, who bears enforcement costs, and how compliance is evaluated across jurisdictions. These changes carry practical consequences for local governments, property owners, and developers that flow directly from the amended statutory language and warrant careful consideration.

Reduced enforceability for affected parties

By striking the existing enforcement framework in section 252.422, SB 840 would remove automatic preliminary injunctions, fee shifting, summary procedure, and express declaratory relief provisions. As a result, property owners and developers who believe a local government is violating the statute would be required to pursue relief through ordinary civil litigation. This could increase litigation costs, extend timelines, and reduce practical access to judicial remedies, particularly for smaller property owners or businesses with limited resources.

Greater uncertainty during dispute resolution

Under current law, local governments are prohibited from enforcing challenged actions once litigation is initiated under the statute’s enforcement provisions. SB 840 removes this mechanism. Without automatic stays or expedited review, disputed regulations or procedures may remain in effect while litigation proceeds, creating uncertainty for reconstruction timelines, financing, and permitting decisions during post-hurricane recovery periods.

Narrower geographic and factual coverage

By reducing the impact radius from 100 miles to 50 miles and requiring both a National Hurricane Center hurricane designation and a federal major disaster declaration, SB 840 would exclude jurisdictions that experience significant storm effects but fall outside those criteria. Communities that suffer meaningful damage from storms that are downgraded, rapidly changing, or unevenly declared may no longer receive statutory protection, even if recovery challenges are similar.

Loss of statewide data collection and oversight

The removal of the OPPAGA reporting requirement would eliminate a centralized, statewide mechanism for evaluating how local government actions affect post-hurricane reconstruction and redevelopment. Without this study, future legislative decisions may rely more heavily on anecdotal evidence, litigation outcomes, or localized reports rather than a comprehensive, comparative analysis of recovery impacts across Florida.

Potential variability in local government responses

By restoring local regulatory discretion sooner and removing uniform enforcement mechanisms, SB 840 could result in greater variation among counties and municipalities in how post-hurricane reconstruction is regulated. While this restores home rule authority, it may also lead to inconsistent permitting standards, timelines, and procedural requirements across jurisdictions, which can complicate planning for property owners and developers operating in multiple locations.

Weaker deterrent effect on noncompliant regulations

The elimination of attorneys’ fees recovery and expedited proceedings may reduce the deterrent effect that SB 180 imposed on local governments considering aggressive post-disaster regulatory changes. While the substantive prohibitions would remain, enforcement would depend more heavily on the willingness and capacity of affected parties to pursue longer and more expensive litigation.

Need Guidance on How SB 840 May Affect You or Your Business?

The interaction between SB 180, pending litigation, and the proposed amendments in SB 840 presents a complex and evolving legal landscape. Determining which provisions apply, when they apply, and how they affect specific projects requires careful analysis of statutory language, effective dates, and factual circumstances tied to hurricane impacts.

If you are a local government, property owner, or developer with questions about how SB 180 or SB 840 may affect your land use rights, permitting process, or development plans, our firm is available to provide clear and practical guidance. We assist clients in navigating Florida land use and real estate law during periods of regulatory transition and uncertainty.

Contact attorney Mark Bentley at 813-225-2500 to schedule a consultation with an experienced Florida land use lawyer to discuss how these proposed changes may apply to your situation and to ensure your interests are protected as the law continues to evolve.

[1] Alice Herman, ‘Home rule’ fight over Florida’s SB 180 exposes growing rift inside Republican Ranks, WGCU (Nov. 7, 2025), ‘Home rule’ fight over Florida’s SB 180 exposes growing rift inside Republican ranks | WGCU PBS & NPR for Southwest Florida; 1000 Friends of Florida sues to invalidate Senate Bill 180, seeks to restore local planning authority, 1000fof.org (Oct. 7, 2025), SB-180-suit-press-release-Oct-8-2025.pdf.

[2] 1000 Friends of Florida, Restore Community Planning: SB 180 Litigation Overview, available at https://1000fof.org/priorities/restorecommunityplanning/#/19/

[3] SB 840 (2026).

[4] Id. at §1(2)(a).

[5] Id. at §1(2)(b).

[6] Id. at §1(2)(c).

[7] As designated pursuant to Chapter 380.

[8] Id. at § 2.