I think in this scenario there'd be a couple of options:
1. The land is worth a lot. If that is the case, you should be able to sell it reasonably easily.
2. The land is worth very little. In that case the tax would be insignificant because the land has so little value.
This can happen for all sorts of reasons, they might be using a simple algorithm that takes into account nearby values / recent sales as comparables. Those lots might have subtle features which makes them much more valuable than yours. Etc.
You get hit twice if over-assessed, first of all because you have to pay more, secondly because the high taxes act as a drag on what you can sell it for.
In theory this can result in "negative value", ie, the land generates less income under any plausible use than the property taxes cost.
Then you're stuck! What idiot will buy your white elephant now? How can you stop paying the taxes if no one will buy it? Which is why any fair lvt proposal needs at least an out where landowners can hand stuff back to the state.
If people are buying in an area and that drives up prices because it shows the area is valuable, in what conditions would your land not be worth a similar (ish) value?
But after some time I guess it could be found to be abandon and then sold at auction. But until then you’re liable for it. And I think it makes a difference if you own outright or if you have a mortgage.
It’s an interesting question though since so much property in Detroit has been abandoned.