I have some questions about LVT, as I don't really understand how it is practically different than regular property taxes. For instance, if housing is already

I have some questions about LVT, as I don't really understand how it is practically different than regular property taxes. For instance, if housing is already at the zoning maximum for an area, would this tax be effectively the same as a property tax, because the best land value for this property would be the same amount of housing (assuming it is not completely run down) as currently exists? Interestingly, my area is zoned at X single family homes per acre. Lots are smaller than an acre, and recently a pair of lots was combined/split and 5 (close together) houses are being built there. Does the land value of the neighboring houses go down when the area hits peak zoned requirements? Like, they could have potentially built another house in the 'backyard' of the first one, but now they would run into zoning because of the next yard construction. So now is the land value lower (and thus lower tax?). People also say that they like LVT because they don't get taxed on improving their home. But wouldn't the LVT already factor in an improved home value (if the standard for the area was larger/improved homes)? Thus you're effectively penalized for not improving your home (ex: "The best value for this property is a 3000sqft home here, not a 1500sqft home"). I know the land value is supposed to 'avoid' improvements, but if we're taxing on what someone would pay for the land (if it was devoid of improvements), we would have to factor in what they would then build on it, which might be a much nicer, larger home than what currently exists. (Someone might value a piece of empty land highly if they expect to get a big payout by putting a large house on the property).