At Porsche Design Tower in Sunny Isles Beach, even the cars get ocean views. The sixty-story luxury condominium is famous for an automobile elevator that carries residents and their vehicles directly to their homes in the sky.[i] But the tower has recently drawn attention for a different kind of movement. A peer-reviewed study examining South Florida’s barrier islands detected measurable displacement at Porsche Design Tower and dozens of other coastal buildings.[ii] The finding does not mean that Porsche Design Tower is unsafe, but it exposes an awkward feature of Florida’s condominium safety laws enacted after the 2021 collapse of Champlain Towers South in Surfside, Florida, which killed ninety-eight people.[iii] The law generally decides when mandatory structural scrutiny begins by asking how old a building is. Florida should keep that predictable milestone-inspection calendar, but age should not be the only alarm. When credible evidence identifies abnormal or unexplained movement in a younger condominium, the law should require a qualified professional to determine whether that movement deserves a closer look.
Using Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (“InSAR”), researchers examined coastal buildings from Sunny Isles Beach to Miami Beach between 2016 and 2023. The study documented vertical subsidence ranging from approximately two to eight centimeters across thirty-five buildings and their surrounding areas. About half of the subsiding structures were built in 2014 or later, and the researchers identified a relationship between construction and the observed movement. As they explained, the correlation “suggests that the subsidence is related to construction activities.”[iv] InSAR can detect small changes in structures over time, but those measurements come with an important limitation. Detecting movement is not the same as diagnosing structural danger. Determining what that movement means for a particular building requires additional engineering analysis.[v]
Florida’s current system works differently. Its answer to structural risk is, in large part, written on the calendar. Section 553.899 of the Florida Statutes reflects the Legislature’s determination that a statewide structural inspection program for “aging condominium and cooperative buildings” is necessary to ensure that those buildings remain safe for continued use.[vi] Covered residential buildings of three habitable stories or more generally must undergo their first milestone inspection by the end of the year in which they turn thirty. A local enforcement agency may require that inspection at twenty-five years when local circumstances, including environmental conditions such as proximity to salt water, justify an earlier look.[vii] During the first phase of a milestone inspection, a Florida-licensed architect or engineer visually examines the building’s major structural components and assesses whether signs of substantial structural deterioration exist.[viii] Florida also generally requires structural integrity reserve studies at least every ten years for covered condominium buildings, but those requirements do not establish the specific condition-based evaluation trigger proposed here.[ix]
There is a good reason for Florida to watch the calendar. Age gives regulators, condominium associations, and owners a predictable point at which structural review becomes mandatory. The twenty-five-year option also allows local officials to account for environmental conditions that may justify earlier scrutiny. Florida has continued refining its condominium safety laws, including through amendments to its milestone-inspection requirements in 2025.[x] The problem, then, is not that Florida has ignored condominium safety. It is that even a sensible age-based system may miss information that becomes available long before a building reaches its first mandatory inspection.
A condominium can experience structural movement long before it reaches the age at which Florida law requires its first milestone inspection. The South Florida study illustrates the problem. Researchers detected subsidence in buildings far younger than those ordinarily subject to Florida’s first milestone inspection.[xi] That does not mean every building that moves needs an immediate structural inspection. Some movement may be expected or structurally insignificant.[xii] Florida law should provide a way to evaluate potentially concerning structural movement before a condominium reaches its mandatory inspection age, without assuming that every instance of movement indicates danger.
Florida’s twenty-five-year option does not fully close that gap. It allows local enforcement agencies to require an earlier milestone inspection when local circumstances, including proximity to salt water, justify doing so. But even that earlier deadline remains tied to a building’s age.[xiii] A condominium showing credible signs of abnormal movement at ten or fifteen years old would still fall well outside the ordinary milestone schedule. The distinction is important. Age and environmental exposure are useful proxies because they identify categories of buildings that may warrant earlier scrutiny. Unlike age or environmental exposure, evidence of abnormal movement provides information about the structural behavior of a particular building. A condition-based trigger would allow Florida law to consider not only where a building sits or how many birthdays it has celebrated, but also whether it is experiencing abnormal settlement or structural movement.
Florida should supplement its milestone-inspection system with a narrow condition-based trigger for younger condominiums. When credible evidence identifies abnormal or unexplained building movement, the law should require an evaluation by a licensed engineer or architect. The Legislature or appropriate building authorities could define the threshold with input from engineers so that isolated or insignificant measurements would not trigger unnecessary evaluations. Rather than automatically declaring a building unsafe or requiring a full milestone inspection, the evaluation would allow a qualified professional to determine whether the movement raises structural concerns. If the movement reflects ordinary settlement, the inquiry could end there. If it warrants monitoring or further investigation, the professional could recommend the appropriate next step. The goal is not to replace Florida’s age-based system, but to give the law a way to respond when warning signs appear before the birthday.
A condition-based trigger would come with costs and complications. Satellite measurements require careful interpretation, and condominium associations and unit owners already face significant financial obligations associated with inspections, repairs, and structural reserves.[xiv] A July 2026 report by Florida’s Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability found that local building officials reported granting 1,587 extensions for initial milestone inspections during 2024 and 2025. The report identified difficulty finding available engineers and delays caused by engineering workloads among the reasons for extensions.[xv] These findings illustrate the practical challenges of imposing additional evaluation requirements on an already demanding inspection system.
A rule that treats every detected movement as an emergency could create unnecessary expense and alarm without meaningfully improving safety. Given these existing demands on engineers, Florida should limit additional evaluations to cases involving credible evidence of abnormal or unexplained movement, rather than requiring an inspection whenever movement is detected. That approach would not ask engineers to evaluate an unfamiliar condition. Miami-Dade’s existing recertification guidelines already recognize structural movement and foundation settlement as relevant considerations when evaluating existing buildings.[xvi] A measured response does not require assuming the worst. It simply requires asking the right question sooner.
Porsche Design Tower does not need to be unsafe for its movement to teach Florida something. The state’s condominium safety reforms established an important framework for identifying structural deterioration, but the South Florida study highlights a limitation of relying primarily on a building’s age. Technology can reveal movement long before the statutory clock reaches twenty-five or thirty years. Florida does not need to choose between the calendar and the data. It can preserve its milestone-inspection system while allowing credible evidence of abnormal movement to prompt an earlier professional evaluation. Florida’s condo law can keep watching the calendar, but it should not wait for a birthday to take a warning seriously.
[i] See Porsche Design and Dezer Development Announce Grand Opening of First-of-Its-Kind Porsche Design Tower Miami, Porsche Lifestyle Group (Mar. 15, 2018), https://press.porsche-design.com/en/porsche-design-and-dezer-development-announce-grand-opening-of-first-of-its-kind-porsche-design-tower-miami [https://perma.cc/2DGT-4E54].
[ii] See Farzaneh Aziz Zanjani et al., InSAR Observations of Construction-Induced Coastal Subsidence on Miami’s Barrier Islands, Florida, 11 Earth and Space Sci., at 1, 3 (2024), https://doi.org/10.1029/2024EA003852 [https://perma.cc/3J72-RH7P].
[iii] See NIST Releases Technical Findings on What Caused the 2021 Partial Collapse of Champlain Towers South, NIST (June 22, 2026), https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2026/06/nist-releases-technical-findings-what-caused-2021-partial-collapse [https://perma.cc/6CFF-ZEZC].
[iv] See Zanjani et al., supra note ii, at 1.
[v] See Jean-Pierre Bardet, Bridging the Gap: InSAR, Urban Subsidence, and the Imperative for Proactive Resilience in South Florida, 6 J. Critical Infrastructure Pol’y, at 4 (2025), https://doi.org/10.1002/jci3.70000 [https://perma.cc/6CFF-ZEZC] (explaining that InSAR monitoring should be complemented by ground-based sensors for more precise structural diagnostics); see also Zanjani et al., supra note ii, at 18 (distinguishing whole-building settlement from differential settlement).
[vi] See Fla. Stat. § 553.899(1) (2026).
[vii] See id. § 553.899(3)(a)–(b).
[viii] See id. § 553.899(7)(a).
[ix] See Fla. Stat. § 718.112(2)(g) (2026).
[x] See Act of June 23, 2025, ch. 2025-175, § 4, 2025 Fla. Laws 1, 13–15.
[xi] See Zanjani et al., supra note ii, at 1 (reporting that approximately half of the subsiding structures studied dated from 2014 or later); see also Fla. Stat. § 553.899(3)(a)–(b) (2026) (establishing the ordinary twenty-five- and thirty-year thresholds for initial milestone inspections).
[xii] See Zanjani et al., supra note ii, at 18 (explaining that high-rise buildings are designed to accommodate some settlement, while differential settlement can create internal stresses and cause structural damage).
[xiii] See generally Fla. Stat. § 553.899(3)(b) (2026).
[xiv] See Bardet, supra note v, at 4 (explaining that InSAR data should be supplemented with ground-based monitoring to provide more precise structural assessments); see generally Fla. Stat. § 718.112(2)(f)–(h) (2026) (establishing condominium association obligations concerning reserve funding, structural integrity reserve studies, and milestone inspections).
[xv] See Fla. Off. of Program Pol’y Analysis & Gov’t Accountability, Milestone Inspection Reporting Data: 2024 and 2025, Rep. No. 26-04, at 9 (July 2026), https://oppaga.fl.gov/Documents/Reports/26-04.pdf [https://perma.cc/ZHY3-2TP5] (reporting 1,587 extensions for milestone inspections during 2024 and 2025 and identifying engineer availability and workloads as reasons for extensions).
[xvi] See Miami-Dade Cnty. Regul. & Econ. Res. Dep’t, General Considerations & Guidelines, 2–3 (Jan. 2024), https://www.miamidade.gov/building/library/general-consideration-guidelines-2024.pdf [https://perma.cc/VQ7R-JZTF].
