Then you get a bunch of defaulted and abandoned properties. Cities often have a ton of property that nobody wants and sit on it for decades, and they make a bunch of weird rules that keep people from doing anything useful with the property once they do want it.
The value of the properties would just drop to 0 and you'd get nothing in taxes for it.
? Sounds like the land value is incorrect then. If no one wants it, the land value has plummeted (it being a market at all) which means the taxation should be next to nothing.
If you can't get rid of low-value land that carries no taxation, then the problem isn't the tax scheme.
In reality, this wouldn't happen. Location location location means that valuable land would be invested in, and if the taxation scheme replaced other schemes, a business would be equally likely to pay the tax to get close to customers, but also locate other facilities in low-tax remote areas, which means we're instituting a type of zoning using market mechanisms.
The only time you get abandoned properties in mass is when the value on paper is much higher than the value in reality, and that's a bigger and deeper problem than any tax scheme.
The value of the properties would just drop to 0 and you'd get nothing in taxes for it.