Every time I have ever called FEMA with a question, their advice always included something about taking the land as collateral but excluding the building. And it always sounded to me like advice coming from someone who had never made an actual loan in the real world.
I cannot for the life of me figure out how one could re-jigger one's loan docs to exclude a building but still retain a valid lien on the land. And what happens if, heaven forbid, you have to foreclose on the loan? Do you really want to end up with title to the land but not the building sitting in the middle of it?
Personal opinion: this sounds like a bad idea all around. If you truly want to avoid flood insurance, do the loan unsecured. If you don't want to take the risk of doing the loan unsecured, then why would you want to take the risk of doing a loan secured by the land but not by the building?
And to answer the original question: Yes, the civil money penalty for flood violations is still $385 per.
The opinions expressed are mine and not those of my employer