The conventional wisdom is that real property is a solid investment – after all, they aren’t making any more of it, and it’s often billed as “one of a kind.” Of course, just because the wisdom is conventional doesn’t mean it’s correct. In reality, there are a multitude of considerations that potential real property purchasers should take into account, and a careful review of these will generally result in sounder investment decisions. The condition of any buildings, access to the property and environmental assessments all should be factors in the purchase decision, but there are additional issues from a land use planning perspective that will impact whether an investment in real estate will pay off in the long run.

Investment in real estate, whether residential or commercial, is a great vehicle for building wealth. For many people, however, the most difficult part of building a portfolio of real estate investment is knowing just where to begin. There are more options and moving parts than may be evident at first blush, so new investors might be either hesitant to enter the field or far too brash in diving into an investment without a definitive road map. Both paths are fraught with difficulty and failure.

One of the more interesting facets of land use planning is its ability to impact our lives in a multitude of ways. We can intuitively understand and grasp the concepts of keeping certain types of land use apart – the landfill and the residential neighborhood, for example. These are facially obvious ideas, even if they can still generate controversy from time to time. What is not so obvious, however, is how and where land use planning can impact us in more subtle ways, especially with regard to public health and safety.

This summer, in Murr v. Wisconsin,[1] the United States Supreme Court will make an important decision on property rights and regulatory takings under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. At issue in the case is whether two legally distinct parcels of land can be treated as one for regulatory purposes if they share common ownership. In a time when planning and zoning regulations change sporadically, this case has broad implications for owners of commercial property, farmers, developers, mining operations and others that hold legal title to adjoining properties, so these groups should pay particular attention to this case.

It’s that time of year again. Seasonal holiday displays are beginning to dot our subdivisions and public spaces. Although most will conform to mainstream cultural, religious and societal norms, the ones that don’t create discomfort or even outrage, spurring calls for government authorities to order them to be removed.  When governments do not act, it is not unheard of for citizens to take on the task themselves by removing or destroying the offensive display, risking criminal charges or even arrest in doing so.

In its most basic form, a nonconforming use is the use of a property which is no longer a permitted use under current zoning regulations but was permitted under prior zoning (or, in some cases, before there was zoning). In effect, a prior permitted use is grandfathered in despite the current zoning status. For instance, imagine the neighborhood where you run a business is rezoned as a residential area. Does this mean you have to shut your doors? No. Non-conforming uses play a key role in real estate development as a creative solution to promote urban infill through reuse of existing properties, as it may allow a use that is not otherwise permissible

The ideal situation in a landlord-tenant relationship is the timely adherence to the provisions of the lease, producing mutual benefit for both parties to the contract. Unfortunately, sometimes this relationship deteriorates and a landlord must step in to reassert her or his right to receive cash flow from the leasing of real estate. While an eviction may seem like a harsh step, landlords should understand that it is a business decision made in the course of renting property, one that they should not hesitate to take when necessary. Luckily, the process is not overwhelmingly difficult, even if it must be done according to very specific steps.

Back in 1968, the Kentucky Bar Association (“KBA”) released Unauthorized Practice of Law Opinion KBA U-6 (“U-6”), opining that bank officers and lending institutions could not draft loan documents such as mortgages, security agreements or financing statements without violating the provisions of Kentucky law that prohibit the unauthorized practice of law. It is entirely within the province of attorneys in the Commonwealth of Kentucky to draft legal documents, and this KBA opinion merely reinforced that idea. So far, so good, right? Opinion U-6 was not the last word on where the role of the lender can dovetail with the practice of law, however, and all lenders should take heed of where potential landmines of the unauthorized practice of law in violation of KRS §524.130 still exist.

Zoning categories and the uses that are allowable in each of them are subject to the possibility of amendment by the legislative body. This means that a property can apply to the planning authority to change his zoning designation or to add uses within that designation that are otherwise prohibited. However, many citizens incorrectly believe that zoning designations are permanent and that uses within each zoning category never change. When a neighboring property owner files to rezone property, asking to amend the zoning ordinance to add a new use to a particular category that is prohibited, the neighbors become alarmed at the potential change to their area. Although neighboring property owners have a right to attend hearings and object to the proposed changes, they have no final say or authority as to whether the governmental body approves it. This can lead to zoning battles.

The American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) revised its Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (“Rules”) as of July 1, 2015. Many of the changes are designed to streamline the arbitration process, making it more efficient and cost-effective. While there were many noteworthy changes in the rules, we summarize the most significant and far-reaching revised and new rules below. It is important to note that not all the revised or new rules will apply to contracts in effect before the rules took effect, so the following provisions may or may not apply to existing claims.