rights, so long as it is done so knowingly and voluntarily. Cf. Chames v. DeMayo, 972 So.2d 850, 858-59 (Fla.2007) (allowing homeowners to waive their constitutional rights to homestead exemptions in certain circumstances as long as it is done knowingly and voluntarily); In re Shambow’s Estate, 153 Fla. 762, 15 So.2d 837, 837 (1943) (“It is fundamental that constitutional rights which are personal may be waived.”); Hartwell v. Blasingame, 564 So.2d 543, 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (allowing homeowners to waive their constitutional right to homestead exemptions). And the Restaurant, as a subsequent lessee, is bound by the prior owners’ waiver of those rights in exchange for the after-the-fact permits. Cf. Palm Beach Polo, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, 918 So.2d 988, 995 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (<HOLDING>). In addition, the County argues that the
holding that the owners at the time the land was seized are owed compensation rather than the subsequent purchasers holding that subsequent property owners were bound by prior owners agreement to restrict building density and preserve certain portions of land as a condition of the original zoning approval holding that the property owners duty of reasonable care included maintaining the automatic doors into the building and concluding that disputes of material fact remained as to the property owners constructive notice that the automatic doors were closing too quickly holding that a challenge by taxpayers and property owners to the issuance of municipal bonds was barred by a judgment entered in a prior action recognizing that where the location of a deeded right of way is uncertain it may be clarified by the agreement of subsequent owners