How Is FLUEDRA Changing the Landscape of Florida Land Use and Code Enforcement Disputes?

For years, most Florida property owners, developers, and even some municipal officials viewed the Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act, commonly referred to as FLUEDRA, as a niche statute reserved primarily for rezoning denials and development order disputes. That perception is beginning to change.

Recent litigation and practical experience have demonstrated that FLUEDRA may have far broader applications than many local governments originally anticipated, particularly in disputes involving code enforcement, conditional or special use approvals, operational restrictions, and land use decisions that unfairly burden the use of private property.

The statute, codified in section 70.51, Florida Statutes, was designed to create an alternative to immediate litigation. Instead of forcing property owners directly into expensive and adversarial lawsuits, FLUEDRA establishes a structured mediation process involving a special magistrate who attempts to facilitate a mutually acceptable resolution between the property owner and the governmental entity.

The process is informal by design. The goal is practical problem solving rather than prolonged litigation. Importantly, participation in the process generally does not waive the property owner’s right to later pursue judicial remedies if a resolution cannot be reached.

In practice, however, FLUEDRA has historically been underutilized. Many local governments narrowly interpreted the statute, particularly when property owners attempted to invoke it in contexts involving operational restrictions, code enforcement actions, or disputes arising after approvals had already been granted.

That trend is beginning to shift.

If you are facing a land use denial, burdensome development condition, operational restriction, or code enforcement action involving your property, it is important to evaluate whether FLUEDRA may provide a proactive path toward resolution before litigation escalates. Early strategic use of the statute can often create leverage, open communication with local government staff, and avoid years of unnecessary litigation.

What Is FLUEDRA Intended to Accomplish?

The Florida Legislature enacted FLUEDRA in 1995 to address a reoccurring problem in land use law. Property owners were increasingly forced into expensive constitutional litigation whenever a local government decision unfairly burdened the use of property. The statute was intended to provide a less adversarial mechanism for resolving disputes before positions hardened into full-scale litigation.[1]

Under section 70.51, a property owner may file a request for relief after receiving a development order or enforcement action that unfairly or unreasonably burdens the use of real property. Once invoked, the matter proceeds before a special magistrate who conducts an informal hearing process and issues recommendations aimed at resolving the dispute.

Potential resolutions under FLUEDRA can include:

• Adjustments to land development regulations, permit standards, or other provisions controlling the development or use of land
• Increases or modifications to permitted density, intensity, or land uses
• Transfers of development rights
• Land swaps or land exchanges
• Mitigation measures, including payments made in lieu of onsite mitigation
• Relocating development to the least environmentally or operationally sensitive portion of the property
• Conditioning or limiting the amount of development or use permitted on the property
• Requiring broader or more comprehensive planning review beyond a single proposed use or development
• Issuance of a development order, variance, special exception, permit approval, or other extraordinary relief, including withdrawal of an enforcement action
• Purchase of the real property, or an interest in the property, by an appropriate governmental entity[2]

One of the statute’s most important features is flexibility. Unlike traditional litigation, FLUEDRA allows local governments and property owners to craft practical, negotiated solutions that courts often cannot easily impose.

Why Are Recent FLUEDRA Cases Important?

The recent Florida cases involving FLUEDRA are significant because they continue expanding judicial discussion regarding the scope of the statute and the types of governmental actions that may trigger its protections.

Historically, many municipalities treated FLUEDRA as applicable only to classic zoning denials or permit disputes. In practice, however, property owners increasingly encounter governmental actions that may technically fall outside a traditional rezoning denial but still substantially interfere with property rights.

These disputes often involve:

• Rezoning approvals, which include a burdensome condition of approval
• Conditional approvals
• Historic landmark or district designations
• Operational limitations
• Code enforcement actions
• Site restrictions
• Revocation threats
• Permit conditions
• Mixed-use operational conflicts
• Environmental restrictions

In several recent disputes, property owners have successfully argued that FLUEDRA applies more broadly than many local governments originally believed. That broader interpretation is important because it creates an avenue for mediation and negotiated resolution before disputes escalate into takings litigation, certiorari proceedings, or constitutional claims.

Can FLUEDRA Apply to Code Enforcement Actions?

One of the most important developing issues involves whether FLUEDRA may be invoked in the context of code enforcement disputes. In my experience, many local governments initially resist this interpretation. The argument typically advanced by the government is that FLUEDRA was intended only for development orders or permitting decisions, not ongoing enforcement disputes. That interpretation, however, is not always consistent with either the language or purpose of the statute.

In one significant matter involving a Florida code enforcement dispute, a municipality initially argued that FLUEDRA could not be invoked because the matter involved enforcement activity rather than a traditional zoning or permitting denial. That position is difficult to reconcile with the statutory language itself, which expressly reaches both “development orders” and “enforcement actions.” See §§ 70.51(3), (17), Fla. Stat. In candor, however, the reach of FLUEDRA into the code enforcement context rests primarily on that text and the Act’s stated purpose rather than on case law directly on point.

The leading FLUEDRA decisions, including Peninsular Properties and the recent DeSoto County orders discussed below, arose from development orders rather than enforcement actions. The statutory argument for invoking FLUEDRA against an enforcement action is therefore strong, but practitioners should recognize that there is little appellate authority which squarely addresses the question.

The practical effect is substantial. The statute’s text and purpose reinforce that FLUEDRA should not necessarily be viewed as limited solely to classic rezoning denials, but rather as a broader statutory mechanism intended to encourage negotiated resolution of governmental actions that unfairly burden the use of private property. At the same time, important procedural questions surrounding the practical operation of FLUEDRA’s tolling provisions still remain unresolved.

What Do the Recent FLUEDRA Decisions Actually Involve?

The recent FLUEDRA decisions involve a more direct and important land use issue: what happens when a property owner invokes FLUEDRA after a local government denies a rezoning application, and how that process affects the deadline for judicial review.

In Reardon v. DeSoto County, Florida,[3] Jason and Joy Reardon, the property owners, sought rezoning of a 5.45-acre parcel from Agricultural-5 and Residential Multi Family-6 to Planned Unit Development so the property could be used for an equipment and construction materials storage and staging area. County staff recommended approval, but the Planning Commission recommended denial and the Board ultimately denied the rezoning application.

Rather than immediately pursue judicial review, the Reardons initiated FLUEDRA. The special magistrate recommended that the Board approve the rezoning subject to additional conditions. The Board later rejected the special magistrate’s recommendation, leading the Reardons to then petition for a writ of certiorari.

That procedural posture matters because it created two separate questions. First, was the later certiorari petition timely filed after the owners pursued FLUEDRA? Second, could the owners obtain certiorari review of the Board’s rejection of the special magistrate’s recommendation itself?

What Did the Court Decide on the Motion to Dismiss?

The County moved to dismiss the petition as untimely, arguing that it was filed more than thirty days after the original ordinance denying the rezoning application and that the Board’s rejection of the special magistrate’s recommendation did not create a new cause of action.

The court split the issue.

The court denied the motion to dismiss as to certiorari review of the original rezoning denial. In other words, the court allowed the property owners to proceed with judicial review of the Board’s denial of the rezoning application because the FLUEDRA process affected the finality of that denial for purposes of subsequent judicial review.

At the same time, the court granted the motion to dismiss as to the Board’s rejection of the special magistrate’s recommendation. The court concluded that FLUEDRA does not itself create a new judicial cause of action based solely on a local government’s rejection of a special magistrate’s recommendation.

That distinction is critical. FLUEDRA may suspend or affect the timing of judicial review of the underlying development order or enforcement action, but the local government’s rejection of the special magistrate’s recommendation is not necessarily a separately reviewable quasi-judicial decision.

How Did the Court Interpret FLUEDRA’s Tolling Provision?

The motion to dismiss order is especially important because it directly addressed the unresolved timing issue under section 70.51. The County argued that FLUEDRA merely pauses the thirty-day certiorari deadline, meaning that the clock resumes after the government acts on the special magistrate’s recommendation. The petitioners argued for a broader reading, emphasizing that the statute delays finality until the FLUEDRA process is complete.

The court focused closely on the statutory text. It reasoned that subsection 70.51(10)(a) uses the word “toll,” while subsection 70.51(23) states that a decision describing available uses constitutes the last prerequisite to judicial action and makes the matter ripe or final for subsequent judicial proceedings.

The court ultimately interpreted these provisions together. It concluded that once a landowner invokes FLUEDRA, the process suspends finality or ripeness of the development order or enforcement action until the special magistrate process is concluded.

That is a meaningful interpretation for land use practitioners because it suggests that FLUEDRA does more than merely pause an already-running clock. At least under this order, the matter does not become final for certiorari purposes until the governmental entity issues the written decision required after the FLUEDRA process concludes.

Does This Fully Resolve the 30-Day Clock Question?

Not completely.

The order provides strong reasoning that, once FLUEDRA is invoked, the underlying development order or enforcement action does not become final or ripe for judicial review until the special magistrate process is complete and the local government issues the required written decision.

However, because this is a circuit court order, not a district court of appeal decision, practitioners should treat the issue with caution. The safest approach remains careful deadline analysis at the beginning of any FLUEDRA proceeding.

The unresolved question is still this: when FLUEDRA is invoked after some portion of the thirty-day period has already elapsed, do those earlier days count against the owner after the process ends, or does the thirty-day period run from the later final written decision?

This order supports the latter view, but it does not eliminate all risk statewide.

How Does Peninsular Properties Fit Into This Analysis?

The DeSoto County court relied in part on Peninsular Properties Braden River, LLC v. City of Bradenton, 965 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), which remains one of the leading Florida decisions on FLUEDRA tolling. There, the City argued that the certiorari petition was untimely because it was filed more than thirty days after the City denied the planned development application. The Second District reversed dismissal and upheld the constitutionality of FLUEDRA’s tolling provision against the argument that it encroached on the Florida Supreme Court’s exclusive authority to adopt rules of practice and procedure under article V, section 2(a), of the Florida Constitution.

I represented the property owner in Peninsular Properties. The decision is particularly important here because it held that FLUEDRA’s tolling provision is intertwined with the statute’s substantive purpose: encouraging mediation before litigation. The DeSoto County order expressly relied on Peninsular Properties in rejecting the argument that the Reardons’ certiorari petition was untimely.

Why Is Mark Bentley’s Scholarship Relevant to the Court’s Analysis?

Notably, the court’s analysis reflects the same procedural concerns I addressed both in Peninsular Properties Braden River, LLC v. City of Bradenton, 965 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), and in my law review article, Understanding the Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act,[4] cited by the court discussing FLUEDRA’s relationship to judicial review and certiorari procedure.

Together, these authorities highlight one of the central unresolved issues surrounding FLUEDRA: although the statute was enacted to encourage meaningful pre-litigation dispute resolution and negotiated outcomes, its tolling provisions must still be reconciled with Florida’s strict thirty-day certiorari framework governing review of local land use decisions. The continuing tension between those competing principles remains one of the most important procedural questions in modern Florida land use law.

What Did the Court Decide on the Merits of the Certiorari Petition?

After resolving the motion to dismiss issue, the court later considered the certiorari petition challenging the Board’s denial of the rezoning application. The court reviewed the familiar three-part certiorari standard set out in Haines City Community Development Co. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1995):

• whether procedural due process was afforded,
• whether the Board observed the essential requirements of law, and
• whether the decision was supported by competent substantial evidence.

The court ultimately focused on procedural due process and impartiality. The petitioners argued that one commissioner’s later comments, made during the FLUEDRA hearing, revealed that the commissioner had relied on political or constituent pressure rather than competent substantial evidence during the original rezoning proceeding.

The court acknowledged the unusual posture of the case. The relevant comments were made after the original rezoning denial, during the FLUEDRA process, but the FLUEDRA hearing transcript was part of a public, reported proceeding and bore directly on whether the original proceeding had afforded procedural due process.

The court ultimately granted certiorari, quashed the rezoning denial, and remanded the matter for a new hearing. In doing so, the court adopted, as a matter of first impression in Florida, the rule that the participation of a single biased member automatically invalidates a multi-member board’s quasi-judicial decision, even where that member’s vote was not decisive; here, the Board had denied the application by a 4-1 vote.

What Does This Mean for Florida Land Use Rights Moving Forward?

These decisions matter because they reinforce several important principles for Florida property owners and land use practitioners, including:

• FLUEDRA can materially affect when a development order or enforcement action becomes final for judicial review purposes.
• A local government’s rejection of a special magistrate recommendation may not, by itself, create a separate certiorari action.
• The FLUEDRA process can create a record that later becomes important in evaluating whether the underlying quasi-judicial proceeding satisfied due process.
• Courts may be willing to look closely at whether local government decision-makers acted as impartial quasi-judicial officers or instead allowed political pressure to control the outcome.

For property owners, FLUEDRA should not be treated as an afterthought. It can affect timing, ripeness, finality, settlement leverage, and the later certiorari record. For local governments, the lesson is equally important: rejecting a special magistrate recommendation may be permitted, but the original development decision must still satisfy due process and be supported by competent substantial evidence.

What Should Property Owners Do Before Invoking FLUEDRA?

Because the tolling issue remains procedurally sensitive, property owners should evaluate FLUEDRA immediately after receiving an adverse development order or enforcement action.

Important questions include:

• When was the development order or enforcement action rendered?
• Does it involve a code enforcement order under Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, where the 30-day appeal period applies and certiorari is not available?
• Has the thirty-day certiorari period already begun?
• When must the FLUEDRA request be filed?
• Does the local government action qualify as a development order or enforcement action?
• What written decision will mark finality after the special magistrate process concludes?
• Should a protective certiorari petition be considered?
• What record is being created during the FLUEDRA process?
• Should a court reporter be utilized to ensure testimony is preserved relating to any underlying due process violations that occurred in the Reardon v. DeSoto County, Florida[5] case?
• Should the parties enter into a stipulation confirming agreement on when the 30-day certiorari or appeal periods commence?

These questions should be answered before deadlines begin to close.

Need Guidance Regarding a Florida FLUEDRA or Land Use Dispute?

FLUEDRA can be a powerful tool, but it is also procedurally unforgiving. The statute sits at the intersection of mediation, certiorari review, ripeness, finality, and local government land use decision-making.

If you are facing a rezoning denial, development order dispute, enforcement action, or uncertainty regarding FLUEDRA deadlines and judicial review rights, early legal strategy matters. Contact attorney Mark Bentley at Johnson Pope at (813) 225-2500 to discuss your options and evaluate whether FLUEDRA may provide a path toward resolution before litigation escalates.

[1] See ch. 95-181, Laws of Fla. (codified at § 70.51, Fla. Stat.).

[2] Fla. Stat. §70.51(19)(b) (2010).

[3] Reardon v. DeSoto County, No. 2023-CA-430(Fla. 12th Jud. Cir. Ct. DeSoto County 10/29/2025) (petition for writ of certiorari).

[4] Understanding the Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act, 37 Stetson L. Rev. 381, 400-401.

[5] Reardon v. DeSoto County, No. 2023-CA-430(Fla. 12th Jud. Cir. Ct. DeSoto County 10/29/2025) (petition for writ of certiorari).