In 2006, Rhode Island resident Art Yatsko bought a residential lot in North Port, Florida, intending to eventually build a home there (Image Credit: Institute for Justice)
In 2006, Rhode Island resident Art Yatsko bought a residential lot in North Port, Florida, intending to eventually build a home there. Yatsko filed a federal lawsuit against the City of North Port on June 9, 2026. Yatsko purchased the vacant property on Kumquat Avenue in North Port in 2006 after seeing an advertisement for residential lots being offered at auction.
Because it was in a residential area and had the characteristics he wanted for his future home, the property appealed to him. The dispute therefore centres on whether North Port’s zoning restrictions can prevent that particular use of the vacant lot.
Which represents Yatsko, the zoning change prevented him from building the home he had planned for years, according to the Institute for Justice. He envisioned eventually moving from Rhode Island to Florida after retirement and building a modest two or three-bedroom home, according to the lawsuit’s description. The organisation says the zoning framework could allow uses such as a nightclub or shooting range, while a conventional single-family home is prohibited.
A retirement plan that began with a vacant Florida lot has now become the subject of a federal lawsuit. Eighteen years later, as he prepared to begin construction, he learned that the property had been rezoned and no longer permitted a new single-family residence. He also planned to have a swimming pool, garage and space to park a small boat. The legal filing and the Institute for Justice’s case materials point to the possibility of uses that are considerably different from the residential home Yatsko had planned. Some multifamily residential uses may also be possible with special permission. For Yatsko, however, those alternatives do not address the purpose for which he purchased the property. His plan was to build a home similar to the single-family residences already found in the neighbourhood.
Supreme Court’s 1928 decision in Nectow v. What began as a long-term retirement plan has therefore become a legal dispute over zoning, property use and the limits of a city’s authority to regulate development. The complaint challenges North Port’s zoning restrictions under the U.S. Constitution. Among the arguments described by the Institute for Justice is that the city’s prohibition on a single-family home violates Yatsko’s due-process and equal-protection rights. His attorneys rely in part on the U.S. Cambridge. That case involved a zoning restriction affecting a property where the proposed use was consistent with surrounding development. Yatsko’s lawyers argue that the principles from that decision apply to the North Port dispute. The lawsuit does not mean Yatsko has already established that the zoning is unconstitutional. The claims will be considered through the federal court process. For now, the property remains at the centre of an ongoing federal case. The lawsuit asks the court to examine whether North Port’s restrictions on Yatsko’s planned single-family home are constitutionally permissible.