The Permits Buyers Skip

Every buyer checks the numbers. Fewer check whether the park is legally allowed to be a park.

A broker package lists the site count. The rent roll confirms it. The underwriting prices it. Everyone agrees on the number, so nobody asks the county whether the number is legal.

That is the permits gap, and it is one of the quietest ways a deal reprices itself after closing. Zoning, permits, certificates of occupancy, code enforcement records. The paperwork that determines whether the park operates as a park, at that site count, under current rules. Buyers treat it as closing paperwork. It is a diligence question, and it belongs before the offer.

The site count is a claim

Ask experienced operators where a deal's story breaks and site counts come up fast. The pieces tell different stories, and site counts can include spaces that are unusable, seasonal, or simply not legally permitted. The rent roll counts what the seller collects on. The county counts what the law allows. Those are different numbers, and the purchase price should know which one it is paying for.

This is the same discipline from the earlier field notes, applied to the legal picture. A broker-reported site count is not a verified fact until something issued by an authority says so. The question is not whether the seller is honest. The question is whether the paperwork agrees with the rent roll.

Grandfathering is not a force field

Many parks operate as legal nonconforming uses: the zoning changed around them, and they were allowed to continue. Buyers hear "grandfathered" and treat it as permanent. It often is not.

Nonconforming status can come with conditions. It can limit expansion, rebuilding after damage, or changes in use. Those limits are written jurisdiction by jurisdiction, and two ordinances show the shape of them. In Boone, North Carolina, the Unified Development Ordinance, Article 7, section 7.03.02, bars any increase in the volume, frequency, or intensity of a nonconforming use and bars expanding it to occupy a greater area of land or floor area, and section 7.03.04 allows a change of use only to a permissible use. In Frisco, Texas, the Zoning Ordinance, Subsection 1.06, states the same intent in its own words: a nonconforming use shall not be expanded or extended, a nonconforming use may not be changed to another nonconforming use, a nonconforming structure destroyed in full may not be rebuilt except to conform, and partial destruction not exceeding 51 percent of appraised value may be reconstructed without expanding the existing square footage or function. Both ordinances also put the burden of establishing legal nonconforming status on the owner. Neither ordinance makes a sale, by itself, a review trigger, and this note no longer claims one does. The narrower ownership point that does exist is a utility one, covered in the municipality section below: in Florida, certain public water systems must re-demonstrate capacity after a change in ownership. What grandfathering actually protects is established only by the record: the zoning designation, the nonconforming use determination, and whatever conditions attach to it. "Grandfathered" is a claim about a legal status. Like every claim in this series, it needs a source.

The related trap is replacement rights. A park permitted for its full site count is one thing. A park where some of those sites were added without permits is another. If the county ever enforces, the buyer does not get to keep the sites just because the seller collected rent on them for years.

The municipality call nobody makes

The diligence question buyers skip is the municipal one: water and stormwater capacity, permits needed or expired, and whether any zoning changes are coming to the area.

That call is cheap and it answers expensive questions. Are there open or expired permits on file? Any code enforcement actions? Has the zoning around the park changed, or is a change under discussion? Was utility capacity for the site count ever documented, or only discussed? New ownership itself can draw fresh municipal attention to a property that operated quietly for years under the seller.

One ownership consequence is documented, and it is narrower than a zoning review. In Florida, Rule 62-555.525, F.A.C., requires a public water system that counts as a "new system" under that rule to demonstrate financial, managerial, and technical capacity, and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection form for that demonstration, Form 62-555.900(20), is due again within 90 days after a change in ownership of the system. That is a capacity re-demonstration for the water system, not a general sale trigger for the park, and it applies only to systems inside the rule's definition of a new system. A buyer of a park on its own water system in Florida should still ask the question in diligence, because the filing follows the ownership change.

None of this requires an adversarial posture. It requires a phone call, before the price is final.

The expansion trap

Permits also govern what the buyer plans to do next. Consider an illustrative composite: a buyer plans to add sites, and the water system needs a state environmental approval: engineering, testing, treatment equipment, larger retention. The seller covers some engineering costs. Testing fees, a treatment system, and higher-capacity tanks fall on the buyer. The sites were buildable. They just were not free.

Put illustrative numbers on that pattern so the risk is priced, not just named. Say the expansion is 20 sites (illustrative composite, not a quote and not a market price): engineering and permitting at $18,000, testing and treatment equipment at $42,000, and larger storage and retention capacity at $35,000. The utility side of the expansion totals $95,000, or $4,750 per added site, before a single pad is poured. If the seller covers the $18,000 in engineering, the remaining $77,000 still lands on the buyer. The figures are a labeled illustration of the shape of the cost: the sites were buildable, and the approval path is where the money went.

Underwrite the expansion the way you underwrite the purchase: permitted, costed, and scheduled. A site that cannot be permitted is not inventory. It is a drawing.

Verify before you price

The permits discipline is short. Confirm the zoning designation and that park use is allowed there. Confirm the permitted site count against the rent roll's site count. Pull permit history and code enforcement records. Ask about upcoming zoning or utility changes. Where the use is nonconforming, get the determination and its conditions in writing. Confirm anything material with appropriate legal and regulatory professionals. This is diligence, not legal advice.

The permits sequence, in order (CrosstownOS Field Notes):

1. The zoning designation for the parcel, from the county or municipality, not the package.
2. The permitted site count, set against the site count on the rent roll.
3. The permit history, and any code enforcement record that comes with it.
4. Upcoming zoning or utility changes that touch the park.
5. The nonconforming determination, in writing: conforming, grandfathered, or nonconforming, and what each means for expansion or rebuild.
6. Confirmation with legal professionals before the price is set.

Absence is the finding. The paper asset and the physical asset must meet before someone wires money.

The permitted count is still a paper count until someone walks the ground, and the Lot-by-Lot Walkthrough is the on-site worksheet for that walk: every pad, what is on it, and where it does not match the package.

Every item on that list is a document that either exists or does not. Where it does not exist, that is missing evidence, not a minor gap. Absence is the finding. And where the record contradicts the package, the price should move before closing. After closing, the county does not negotiate either.

The paper asset and the physical asset must meet before someone wires money. Permits are where they meet.

A permit question answered in diligence is paperwork. The same question answered after closing is a stop-work order with a purchase price attached.

Next in Field Notes: the rent roll is a claim, not income verification.

Sources and Limits

This note is grounded in the evidence discipline defined in the ParkProof Standard, in the Acquisition Signal research program, and in operator community research, anonymized so no park, seller, or commenter is identified. The legal examples are illustrative jurisdictions, not a survey of national law, and this note is diligence guidance, not legal advice.

External sources opened for this note:

• Town of Boone, North Carolina, Unified Development Ordinance, Article 7, Nonconformities: sections 7.03.02, 7.03.04, and 7.01.04 support the expansion, change of use, and owner burden points above.
• City of Frisco, Texas, Zoning Ordinance, Subsection 1.06, Nonconforming Uses and Structures: supports the no expansion, no change to another nonconforming use, and rebuild limits above.
• Florida Administrative Code, Rule 62-555.525, and Florida Department of Environmental Protection Form 62-555.900(20): support the narrower Florida water system capacity point, including the operations plan due within 90 days after a change in ownership of a covered system.

Limits: ordinance text changes, and the ordinance that governs a specific park is the one in force for its parcel and its dates. The priced expansion example is a labeled illustration, not a quote. Confirm the current text and its application with the municipality and with legal counsel before pricing a deal.

Put it to work: start with the free RV park due diligence checklist for the fifteen items in order, including permits and zoning. When the deal gets real, the Acquisition Workspace carries the full record.

This note may use AI-assisted research and drafting. Sources, claims, and final editorial judgment remain subject to human review.