FLOOD00937 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

late to the property. The ex.isting structures are "grand- fathered" in (becoming nonconforming uses) and thus do not have to comply with the regulations and codes unless they require sub- stantial improvements. However, the application of substantial improvement regulations to remove nonconforming uses has not been widespread nor effective.l Thus, the effects on market property values would be slight. The greatest potential for floodplain regulations to affect market property values relates to changes in land use, e.g., change from undeveloped to developed land or from single family residential uses to higher intensity uses such as shopping centers or high rise apartment buildings. If such desired changes are pre- vented by floodplain regulations, anticipated windfall profits associated with such transactions may not be realized. However, it is important to note that windfall profits associated with land speculation frequently are not realized independent of any regulations. Compliance with the existing floodplain regulations did not appear to be a deterrent to development in the floodplains of case study communities. Development projects that were believed to be economically feasible were constructed in accordance with the pro- visions of the floodplain regulations. In a special analysis of flood proofing alternatives on a proposed small commercial building in Jersey Shore, Pennsylvania, it was shown that construction costs would increase between 6 and 16 percent to flood proof to the 100- year flood elevation.2 However, these increased costs of flood lSheaffer & Roland, Inc., Alternatives for Implementing Substantial Improvement Definitions (Was~ington,D., C.: Depart- ment of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Insurance Admin- istration, 1978). 2Sheaffer & Roland, Inc., Economic Feasibility of Flood Proofing: An Analysis of a Small Commercial Building (Washington, D.C.: Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1978).