For better or worse, no, land use and real estate lawyers are not the same. While both areas focus on real property, the former concerns how property is used and the latter concerns the selling/purchasing of property. While practitioners might have cross-over skillsets, and while land use approvals or entitlements might be conditions triggering rights and obligations in a contract of sale (or purchase sale agreement), you should confirm your chosen counsel's expertise and the scope of your retainer or engagement.
As noted in the inaugural post, land use focuses on legalizing the use of land. Land use applicants generally must provide the owner's consent as part of the application. Things might get complicated with long-term ground leases where a municipality might consider the ground lessee as having stepped into the shoes of the ground lessor-owner, but virtually all application forms and rules require the owner's consent. Consent is required because, among other reasons, granting the application will impact how the property is used and may include the imposition of conditions on that property. Failing to involve the owner implicates due process and property rights.
On the real estate side, the attorney's and the client's objective is to dispose of, or acquire, land. Real estate counsel will actively handle many facets of the transaction (e.g. title, financing, brokers, counsel, 1031 exchanges, corporate deliverables, etc.), but generally need not concern himself or herself with local land use regulations or the purchaser's plans for the property. Counsel might also not concern himself or herself with whether the property's existing conditions are legal. For example, a seller-owner might have cleared a wooded portion of the property and placed material to add parking for site operations - and made such improvements without permission. These types of improvements might require, among other things, grading/drainage review, site plan approval, a tree clearing permit, and a building permit (e.g. site work only permit).
An unwary buyer who purchases this property with the "illegal" improvements, and who seeks to make his or her own improvements to the site, will almost certainly be caught in a situation where the municipality flags the illegal improvements. The proposed site plan will (and/or updated survey) will reflect existing conditions and, when the buyer-applicant submits his or her application, the municipality will see the site changed since the last approved site plan. The municipality could require the buyer-applicant to resolve these improvements, e.g. remove the materials, revegetate, etc. These items are costly and can slow down the buyer's plans for the site.
Sometimes, a contract allows a buyer to perform due diligence for, among other things, obtaining approvals for using the property a certain way. The contract would provide timelines for when applications must be made, when approvals must be obtained, and when the buyer's right to require a close triggers. It is also likely that the contract would also permit the buyer to extend his or her rights, but at a cost, and not in perpetuity.
These are a few examples how land use and real estate are different, but related, areas of practice. I hope this is helpful!
Comments