UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Form 10-K

FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2004

For the transition period from            to

AGREE REALTY CORPORATION

Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months, and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ          No o

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. o

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). Yes þ          No o

The aggregate market value of the Registrant’s shares of common stock held by non-affiliates was approximately $163,614,366 as of June 30, 2004, based on the closing price of $25.30 on the NYSE on that date.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Part I

FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

     We have made statements in this Form 10-K that are “forward- Looking” in that they do not discuss historical facts but instead note future expectations, projections, intentions or other items relating to the future.

     Forward-looking statements, which are generally prefaced by the words “anticipate,” “estimate,” “should,” “expect,” “believe,” “intend,” and similar terms, are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other facts that may cause our actual results or performance to differ materially from those contemplated by the forward-looking statements. Many of those factors are noted in conjunction with the forward-looking statements in the text. Other important factors that could cause our actual results to differ include:

	•	Our inability to effect the development or acquisition of properties on favorable terms.
	•	The effect of economic conditions. If an economic downturn occurs, any corresponding decrease in disposable income could result in consumers being less willing to purchase goods from our tenants which could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. Our financial condition and results of operations could also be adversely affected if our tenants are otherwise unable to make lease payments or fail to renew their leases.
	•	Our inability to obtain long-term financing at interest rates that will allow us to offer attractive rental rates to our tenants in order to continue the development or acquisition of retail properties leased to national tenants on a long-term basis.
	•	Actions of our competitors. We seek to remain competitive in the development of real estate assets in the markets that we currently serve. With regard to our acquisition of properties, we compete with insurance companies, credit companies, pension funds, private individuals, investment companies and other REITs, some of which have greater resources than we do.
	•	Failure to qualify as a REIT. Although we believe that we were organized and have been operating in conformity with the requirements for qualification as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code, we cannot assure you that we will continue to qualify as a REIT.
	•	Changes in government regulations, tax rates and similar matters, For example, changes in real estate and zoning laws, environmental uncertainties and natural disasters could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

     Other risk uncertainties and factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected are discussed in the “Risk Factors” section of this Form 10-K.

     We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law. In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the forward-looking events discussed in or incorporated by reference into this Form 10-K might not occur.

     References herein to the “Company” include Agree Realty Corporation, together with its wholly-owned subsidiaries and its majority owned operating partnership, Agree Limited Partnership (Operating Partnership), unless the context otherwise requires.

3

Item 1. BUSINESS

General

     We are a fully-integrated, self-administered and self-managed real estate investment trust (a “REIT”) that focuses primarily on the development, acquisition and ownership of retail properties net leased to national tenants. We were formed in December 1993 to continue and expand the retail business founded in 1971 by our current President and Chairman, Richard Agree. We specialize in building properties for national retailers who have signed long-term net leases prior to commencement of construction. All of our freestanding property tenants and most of our community shopping center tenants have triple-net leases which typically require the tenant to be responsible for property operating expenses including property taxes, insurance and maintenance. We believe this strategy provides us with a generally consistent source of income and cash for distributions and also provides opportunities for development of additional properties at attractive returns on investment, without the risks associated with speculative development.

     At December 31, 2004, our portfolio consisted of 54 properties, located in 14 states and contained an aggregate of approximately 3.5 million square feet of gross leasable area (GLA). As of December 31, 2004 our portfolio includes 41 freestanding net leased properties and 13 community shopping centers that were 99% leased with a weighted average lease term of approximately 12 years. As of December 31, 2004, approximately 65% of our annualized lease revenue is derived from our top three tenants: Borders Group, Inc. (Borders) – 32%, Walgreen Co. (Walgreen) – 18% and Kmart Corporation (Kmart) - 15%. As of December 31, 2004 approximately 89% of our annualized lease revenue is derived from national tenants.

     We expect to continue to grow our asset base primarily through the development of new retail properties that are pre-leased on a long-term basis to national tenants. Since our initial public offering in 1994, we have developed 45 of our 54 properties. We developed 32 of our 41 freestanding properties and all 13 of our community shopping centers. As of December 31, 2004, the properties that we developed (including the community shopping centers) accounted for 86% of our annualized base rent. We focus on development because we believe it generally provides us a higher return on investment than the acquisition of similarly located properties. We expect to continue to expand our tenant relationships and diversify our tenant base to include other quality national tenants.

Growth Strategy

     Our growth strategy is to continue to develop retail properties pre-leased on a long-term basis to national tenants. We believe that a development strategy combined with substantial pre-leasing will produce superior risk adjusted returns. To effect this strategy, we identify a land parcel that we believe is an attractive retail location for one of our tenant relationships. The location must be in a concentrated retail corridor, have high traffic counts, good visibility and demographics compatible with the needs of the particular retail tenant. Then we propose to that tenant that we execute a long-term net lease for the finished development on that site.

     Once the lease is executed, we purchase the land and pursue all the necessary approvals to begin development. We direct all aspects of the development, including construction, design, leasing and management. Property management and the majority of the leasing activities are handled directly by our personnel. We believe that this hands-on approach to development and property management enhances our ability to maximize the long-term value of our properties.

Financing Strategy

     The majority of our indebtedness is fixed rate, non-recourse and long-term in nature. Whenever possible, we use long-term financing for our properties to match the underlying long-term leases. As of December 31, 2004, the average weighted maturity of our long- term debt was 15.4 years. We intend to limit our floating rate debt to borrowings under our credit facilities, which are primarily used to finance new development and acquisitions. Once development of a project is completed, we typically refinance this floating rate debt with long-term, fixed rate, non-recourse debt. As of December 31, 2004, our total debt was approximately $93 million, consisting of approximately $53.8 million of fixed rate debt at an average interest rate of 6.63% and approximately $39.2 million of floating rate

4

debt, consisting primarily of the credit facilities, at an aggregate weighted average interest rate of 3.78%. We intend to maintain a ratio of total indebtedness (including construction and acquisition financing) to market capitalization of 65% or less.

     We may from time to time re-evaluate our borrowing policies in light of the then current economic conditions, relative costs of debt and equity, capital, market value of properties, growth and acquisition opportunities and other factors. There is no contractual limit on our ratio of total indebtedness to total market capitalization, and accordingly, we may modify our borrowing policy and may increase or decrease our ratio of debt to market capitalization without stockholder approval.

Property Management

     We maintain an active leasing and capital improvement program that, combined with the quality and locations of our properties, has made our properties attractive to tenants. We intend to continue to hold our properties for long-term investment and accordingly, place a strong emphasis on quality construction and an on-going program of regular maintenance. Our properties are designed to require minimal capital improvements other than renovations or expansions paid for by tenants. At our 13 community shopping centers properties, we sub-contract on-site functions such as maintenance, landscaping, snow removal, sweeping, plumbing and electrical and, to the extent permitted by the respective leases, our cost of these functions is reimbursed by our tenants. Personnel from our corporate headquarters conduct regular inspections of each property and maintain regular contact with major tenants.

     We have a management information system designed to provide management with the operating data necessary to make informed business decisions on a timely basis. This computer system provides us immediate access to store availability, lease data, tenants’ sales history, cash flow budgets and forecasts, and enables us to maximize cash flow from operations and closely monitor corporate expenses.

Agree Limited Partnership

     Our assets are held by, and all of our operations are conducted through, Agree Limited Partnership (Operating Partnership), of which we are the sole general partner and held a 90.59% interest as of December 31, 2004. Under the partnership agreement of the Operating Partnership, we, as the sole general partner, have exclusive responsibility and discretion in the management and control of the Operating Partnership.

Recent Developments

     In January 2005 we priced a public offering of 1,000,000 shares of our common stock at an offering price of $28.28 per share resulting in net proceeds of approximately $27.1 million. The net proceeds were used to repay part of our outstanding indebtedness under our credit facility and line of credit.

     In February 2005 the underwriters exercised their over allotment option for an additional 150,000 shares of our common stock at the per share price of $28.28, resulting in net proceeds of approximately $4.1 million. The net proceeds were also used to repay part of our outstanding indebtedness under our credit facility and line of credit.

Headquarters

     Our headquarters are located at 31850 Northwestern Highway, Farmington Hills, MI 48334 and our telephone number is (248) 737-4190. Our web site address is www.agreerealty.com. Agree Realty Corporation’s SEC filings can be accessed through this site.

5

Risk Factors

     General

     We rely significantly on three major tenants. As of December 31, 2004, we derived approximately 65% of our annualized base rent from three major tenants, Borders, Walgreen and Kmart. In the event of a default by any of these tenants under their leases, we may experience delays in enforcing our rights as lessor and may incur substantial costs in protecting our investment. The bankruptcy or insolvency of any of the major tenants would likely have a material adverse effect on the properties affected and the income produced by those properties and correspondingly our ability to make distributions.

     In November 2004, Kmart announced that Kmart and Sears, Roebuck and Co. had entered into an agreement and plan of merger. In the event the combined operations result in the closing or sale of certain stores, our portfolio of properties could be affected which could have a material adverse effect on our operations.

     In the event that certain tenants cease to occupy a property, although under most circumstances such a tenant would remain liable for its lease payments, such an action may result in certain other tenants having the right to terminate their leases at the affected property, which could adversely affect the future income from that property. As of December 31, 2004, 13 of our properties had tenants with those provisions in their leases.

     We could be adversely affected by a tenant’s bankruptcy. If a tenant becomes bankrupt or insolvent, that could diminish the income we expect from that tenant’s leases. We may not be able to evict a tenant solely because of its bankruptcy. On the other hand, a bankruptcy court might authorize the tenant to terminate its leases with us. If that happens, our claim against the bankrupt tenant for unpaid future rent would be subject to statutory limitations that might be substantially less than the remaining rent we are owed under the leases. In addition, any claim we have for unpaid past rent would likely not be paid in full. One of our major tenants, Kmart recently emerged from bankruptcy. As part of their plan of reorganization, Kmart terminated one of our leases and modified two other leases. We cannot predict what effect a future Kmart bankruptcy or the bankruptcy of a major tenant would have on us. A failure by Kmart to successfully implement its reorganization plan or to continue as a going concern could result in Kmart’s inability to maintain its lease payments to us or to attempt to renegotiate to terminate its leases.

     Risks involved in single tenant leases. We focus our development activities on net leased real estate or interests therein. Because our properties are generally leased to single tenants, the financial failure of or other default by a tenant resulting in the termination of a lease is likely to cause a significant reduction in our operating cash flow and might decrease the value of the property leased to such tenant.

     Risks associated with borrowing, including loss of properties in the event of a foreclosure. At December 31, 2004, our ratio of indebtedness to market capitalization was approximately 29.1%. The use of leverage presents an additional element of risk in the event that (1) the cash flow from lease payments on our properties is insufficient to meet debt obligations, (2) we are unable to refinance our debt obligations as necessary or on as favorable terms or (3) there is an increase in interest rates. If a property is mortgaged to secure payment of indebtedness and we are unable to meet mortgage payments, the property could be foreclosed upon with a consequent loss of income and asset value to us. Under the “cross-default” provisions contained in mortgages encumbering some of our properties, our default under a mortgage with a lender would result in our default under mortgages held by the same lender on other properties resulting in multiple foreclosures.

     Risks associated with our development and acquisition activities. We intend to continue development of new properties and to consider possible acquisitions of existing properties. New project development is subject to a number of risks, including risks of construction delays or cost overruns that may increase project costs, risks that the properties will not achieve anticipated occupancy levels or sustain anticipated rent levels, and new project commencement risks such as receipt of zoning, occupancy and other required governmental permits and authorizations and the incurrence of development costs in connection with projects that are not pursued to completion. In addition, we anticipate that our new development will be financed under lines of credit or other forms of construction financing that will result in a risk that permanent financing on newly developed projects might not be available or would be available only on disadvantageous terms. In addition, the fact that we must distribute 90% of our taxable income in order to maintain our qualification as a REIT will limit our ability to rely upon income

6

from operations or cash flow from operations to finance new development or acquisitions. As a result, if permanent debt or equity financing was not available on acceptable terms to refinance new development or acquisitions undertaken without permanent financing, further development activities or acquisitions might be curtailed or cash available for distribution might be adversely affected. Acquisitions entail risks that investments will fail to perform in accordance with expectations and that judgments with respect to the costs of improvements to bring an acquired property up to standards established for the market position intended for that property will prove inaccurate, as well as general investment risks associated with any new real estate investment.

     We are currently in litigation with Borders concerning the rental rate for our Ann Arbor, Michigan property. This litigation could adversely affect our relationship with Borders including future development and acquisition activities. To the extent we are unable to complete future development and acquisition activities with Borders, our operations could be negatively impacted.

     Our portfolio has limited geographic diversification. Our properties are located primarily in the Midwestern United States and Florida. The concentration of our properties in a limited number of geographic regions creates the risk that, should these regions experience an economic downturn, our operations may be adversely affected. Twenty-nine of our properties are located in Michigan. Should Michigan experience an economic downturn, our operations and our rentals from our Michigan properties could be adversely affected.

     Dependence on key personnel. We are dependent on the efforts of our executive officers and directors. The loss of one or more of our executive officers or directors would likely have a material adverse effect on our future development or acquisition operations, which could adversely affect the market price of our common stock. We do not presently have key-man life insurance for any of our employees.

     We are not limited by our organization documents as to the amount of debt we may incur. We intend to maintain a ratio of total indebtedness (including construction or acquisition financing) to market capitalization of 65% or less. Nevertheless, we may operate with debt levels which are in excess of 65% of market capitalization for extended periods of time. Our organization documents contain no limitation on the amount or percentage of indebtedness which we may incur. Therefore, our board of directors, without a vote of the stockholders, could alter the general policy on borrowings at any time. If our debt capitalization policy were changed, we could become more highly leveraged, resulting in an increase in debt service that could adversely affect our operating cash flow and our ability to make expected distributions to stockholders, and could result in an increased risk of default on our obligations.

     We can change our investment and financing policies without stockholder approval. Our investment and financing policies, and our policies with respect to certain other activities, including our growth, debt capitalization, distributions, REIT status and investment and operating policies, are determined by our Board of Directors. Although we have no present intention to do so, these policies may be amended or revised from time to time at the discretion of our Board of Directors without a vote of our stockholders.

     Competition. We face competition in seeking properties for acquisition and tenants who will lease space in these properties from insurance companies, credit companies, pension funds, private individuals, investment companies and other REITs, many of which have greater financial and other resources than we do. There can be no assurance that the Company will be able to successfully compete with such entities in its development, acquisition and leasing activities in the future.

     Risks Associated With Investment In Real Estate

     There are risks associated with owning and leasing real estate. Although our lease terms obligate the tenants to bear substantially all of the costs of operating our properties, investing in real estate involves a number of risks, including:

•

The risk that tenants will not perform under their leases, reducing our income from the leases or requiring us to assume the cost of performing obligations (such as taxes, insurance and maintenance) that are the tenant’s responsibility under the lease.

7

	•	The risk that changes in economic conditions or real estate markets may adversely affect the value of our properties.
	•	The risk that local conditions (such as oversupply of similar properties) could adversely affect the value of our properties.
	•	The risk that we may not always be able to lease properties at favorable rental rates.
	•	The risk that we may not always be able to sell a property when we desire to do so at a favorable price.
	•	The risk of changes in tax, zoning or other laws could make properties less attractive or less profitable.

If a tenant fails to perform on its lease covenants, that would not excuse us from meeting any mortgage debt obligation secured by the property and could require us to fund reserves in favor of our mortgage lenders, thereby reducing funds available for payment of dividends on our shares of common stock. We cannot be assured that tenants will elect to renew their leases when the terms expire. If a tenant does not renew its lease or if a tenant defaults on its lease obligations, there is no assurance we could obtain a substitute tenant on acceptable terms. If we cannot obtain another tenant with comparable structural needs, we may be required to modify the property for a different use, which may involve a significant capital expenditure and a delay in re-leasing the property.

     Uncertainties relating to lease renewals and re-letting of space. We are subject to the risks that, upon expiration of leases for space located in our properties, the premises may not be re-let or the terms of re-letting (including the cost of concessions to tenants) may be less favorable than current lease terms. If we are unable to re-let promptly all or a substantial portion of our retailers or if the rental rates upon such re-letting were significantly lower than expected rates, our net income and ability to make expected distributions to stockholders would be adversely affected. There can be no assurance that we will be able to retain tenants in any of our properties upon the expiration of their leases.

     Some potential losses are not covered by insurance. Our leases require the tenants to carry comprehensive liability, casualty, workers’ compensation, extended coverage and rental loss insurance on our properties. However, there are some types of losses, such as terrorist acts or catastrophic acts of nature, for which we or our tenants cannot obtain insurance at an acceptable cost. If there is an uninsured loss or a loss in excess of insurance limits, we could lose both the revenues generated by the affected property and the capital we have invested in the property. We believe the required coverage is of the type, and amount, customarily obtained by an owner of similar properties. We believe all of our properties are adequately insured. However, there are some types of losses, such as terrorist acts or catastrophic acts of nature, for which we or our tenants cannot obtain insurance at an acceptable cost. If there is an uninsured loss or a loss in excess of insurance limits, we could lose both the revenues generated by the affected property and the capital we have invested in the property. We would, however, remain obligated to repay any mortgage indebtedness or other obligations related to the property.

     Potential liability for environmental contamination could result in substantial costs. Under federal, state and local environmental laws, we may be required to investigate and clean up any release of hazardous or toxic substances or petroleum products at our properties, regardless of our knowledge or actual responsibility, simply because of our current or past ownership of the real estate. If unidentified environmental problems arise, we may have to make substantial payments, which could adversely affect our cash flow and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders. This potential liability results from the fact that:

	•	As owner we may have to pay for property damage and for investigation and clean-up costs incurred in connection with the contamination.
	•	The law may impose clean-up responsibility and liability regardless of whether the owner or operator knew of or caused the contamination.

8

	•	Even if more than one person is responsible for the contamination, each person who shares legal liability under environmental laws may be held responsible for all of the clean-up costs.
	•	Governmental entities and third parties may sue the owner or operator of a contaminated site for damages and costs.

These costs could be substantial and in extreme cases could exceed the value of the contaminated property. The presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products or the failure to properly remediate contamination may adversely affect our ability to borrow against, sell or lease an affected property. In addition, some environmental laws create liens on contaminated sites in favor of the government for damages and costs it incurs in connection with a contamination.

     Our leases require our tenants to operate the properties in compliance with environmental laws and to indemnify us against environmental liability arising from the operation of the properties. However, we could be subject to strict liability under environmental laws because we own the properties. There is also a risk that tenants may not satisfy their environmental compliance and indemnification obligations under the leases. Any of these events could substantially increase our cost of operations, require us to fund environmental indemnities in favor of our secured lenders and reduce our ability to service our secured debt and pay dividends to stockholders and any debt security interest payments. Environmental problems at any properties could also put us in default under loans secured by those properties, as well as loans secured by unaffected properties.

     Real estate investments are relatively illiquid. We may desire to sell a property in the future because of changes in market conditions or poor tenant performance or to avail ourselves of other opportunities. We may also be required to sell a property in the future to meet secured debt obligations or to avoid a secured debt loan default. Real estate projects cannot always be sold quickly, and we cannot assure you that we could always obtain a favorable price. We may be required to invest in the restoration or modification of a property before we can sell it.

     Tax Risks

     We will be subject to increased taxation if we fail to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes. A REIT generally is not taxed at the corporate level on income it distributes to its stockholders, as long as it distributes annually at lease 90% of its taxable income to its stockholders. We have not requested and do not plan to request, a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service that we qualify as a REIT.

     If we fail to qualify as a REIT we will face tax consequences that will substantially reduce the funds available for payment of dividends:

•

We would not be allowed a deduction for dividends paid to shareholders in computing our taxable income and would be subject to federal income tax at regular corporate rates.

•

We could be subject to the federal alternative minimum tax and possibly increased state and local taxes.

•

Unless we are entitled to relief under statutory provisions, we could not elect to be treated as a REIT for four taxable years following the year in which we were disqualified.

In addition, if we fail to qualify as a REIT, we will no longer be required to pay dividends (other than any mandatory dividends on any preferred shares we may offer). As a result of these factors, our failure to qualify as a REIT could adversely effect the market price for our common stock.

     Excessive non-real estate asset values may jeopardize our REIT status. In order to qualify as a REIT, at least 75% of the value of our assets must consist of investments in real estate, investments in other REITs, cash and cash equivalents, and government securities. Therefore, the value of any property that is not considered a real estate asset for federal income tax purposes must represent in the aggregate less than 25% of our total assets. In addition, under federal income tax law, we may not own securities in any one company (other than a REIT, a qualified REIT

9

subsidiary or a taxable REIT subsidiary) which represent in excess of 10% of the voting securities or 10% of the value of all securities of any one company, or which have, in the aggregate, a value in excess of 5% of our total assets, and we may not own securities of one or more taxable REIT subsidiaries which have, in the aggregate, a value in excess of 20% of our total assets. We may invest in securities of another REIT, and our investment may represent in excess of 10% of the voting securities or 10% of the value of the securities of the other REIT. If the other REIT were to lose its REIT status during a taxable year in which our investment represented in excess of 10% of the voting securities or 10% of the value of the securities of the other REIT as of the close of a calendar quarter, we will lose our REIT status.

     The 25%, 20%, 10% and 5% tests are determined at the end of each calendar quarter. If we fail to meet any such test at the end of any calendar quarter, we will cease to qualify as a REIT.

     We may have to borrow funds or sell assets to meet our distribution requirements. Subject to some adjustments that are unique to REITs, a REIT generally must distribute 90% of its taxable income. For the purpose of determining taxable income, we may be required to accrue interest, rent and other items treated as earned for tax purposes but that we have not yet received. In addition, we may be required not to accrue as expenses for tax purposes some items which actually have been paid, including, for example, payments of principal on our debt, or some of our deductions might be disallowed by the Internal Revenue Service. As a result, we could have taxable income in excess of cash available for distribution. If this occurs, we may have to borrow funds or liquidate some of our assets in order to meet the distribution requirement applicable to a REIT.

     We may be subject to other tax liabilities. Even if we qualify as a REIT, we may be subject to some federal, state and local taxes on our income and property that could reduce operating cash flow.

     Changes in tax laws may prevent us from qualifying as a REIT. As we have previously described, we intend to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes. However, this intended qualification is based on the tax laws that are currently in effect. We are unable to predict any future changes in the tax laws that would adversely affect our status as a REIT. If there is a change in the tax laws that prevents us from qualifying as a REIT or that requires REITs generally to pay corporate level income taxes, we may not be able to make the same level of distributions to our stockholders.

Major Tenants

     As of December 31, 2004, approximately 66% of our gross leasable area was leased to Borders, Walgreen, and Kmart and approximately 65% of our total annualized base rents were attributable to these tenants. At December 31, 2004, Borders occupied approximately 28% of our gross leasable area and accounted for approximately 32% of the annualized base rent. At December 31, 2004, Walgreen Co. occupied approximately 6% of our gross leasable area and accounted for approximately 18% of the annualized base rent. At December 31, 2004, Kmart Corporation occupied approximately 32% of our gross leasable area and accounted for approximately 15% of the annualized base rent. No other tenant accounted for more than 10% of gross leasable area or annualized base rent in 2004. The loss of any of these anchor tenants or the inability of any of them to pay rent would have an adverse effect on our business.

Tax Status

     We have operated and intend to operate in a manner to qualify as a REIT under Sections 856 through 860 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). In order to maintain qualification as a REIT, we must, among other things, distribute at least 90% of our real estate investment trust income and meet certain other asset and income tests. Additionally, our charter limits ownership of the Company, directly or constructively, by any single person to 9.8% of the total number of outstanding shares, subject to certain exceptions. As a REIT, we are not subject to federal income tax with respect to that portion of its income that meets certain criteria and is distributed annually to the stockholders.

10

Competition

     We face competition in seeking properties for acquisition and tenants who will lease space in these properties from insurance companies, credit companies, pension funds, private individuals, investment companies and other REITs, many of which have greater financial and other resources than us. There can be no assurance that we will be able to successfully compete with such entities in our development, acquisition and leasing activities in the future.

Potential Environmental Risks

     Investments in real property create a potential for environmental liability on the part of the owner or operator of such real property. If hazardous substances are discovered on or emanating from a property, the owner or operator of the property may be held strictly liable for all costs and liabilities relating to such hazardous substances. We have obtained a Phase I environmental study (which involves inspection without soil sampling or ground water analysis) conducted on each Property by independent environmental consultants. Furthermore, we have adopted a policy of conducting a Phase I environmental study on each property we acquire and if necessary conducting additional investigation as warranted.

     We conducted Phase I environmental studies on the two properties we developed and the three properties we acquired in 2004. The results of these Phase I studies required the Company to perform a Phase II environmental site assessment on two of the properties (which involves soil sampling or ground water analysis). The results of the Phase II environmental study conducted on the properties indicated that no further action was required on one property and that we obtain a baseline environmental assessment on the second property. The baseline environmental assessment also confirmed that no further action was required. In addition, we have no knowledge of any hazardous substances existing on any of our properties in violation of any applicable laws; however, no assurance can be given that such substances are not located on any of the properties. We carry no insurance coverage for the types of environmental risks described above.

     We believe that we are in compliance, in all material respects, with all federal, state and local ordinances and regulations regarding hazardous or toxic substances. Furthermore, we have not been notified by any governmental authority of any noncompliance, liability or other claim in connection with any of the properties.

Employees

     As of February 28, 2005, we employed eight persons. Employee responsibilities include accounting, construction, leasing, property coordination and administrative functions for the properties. Our employees are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement, and we consider our employee relations to be satisfactory.

Financial Information About Industry Segments

     We are in the business of development, acquisition and management of freestanding net leased properties and community shopping centers. We consider our activities to consist of a single industry segment. See the Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes thereto included in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K for certain information required in Item 1.

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES

     Our properties consist of 41 freestanding net leased properties and 13 community shopping centers, that as of December 31, 2004 were 99% leased, with a weighted average lease term of 12 years. Approximately 89% of our base rental income was attributable to national retailers. Among these retailers are Borders, Walgreen and Kmart which, at December 31, 2004, collectively represented approximately 65% of our annualized base rent. A majority of our properties were built for or are leased to national tenants who require a high quality location with strong retail characteristics. We developed 32 of our 41 freestanding properties and all 13 of our community shopping centers. Five of our freestanding properties, although not built by us, were acquired as part of our relationship with Borders. Properties we have developed (including our community shopping centers) account for approximately 86% of our annualized base rent for 2005. Our 41 freestanding properties are comprised of 40 retail locations and Borders’ corporate headquarters.

11

     A substantial portion of our income consists of rent received under net leases. Most of the leases provide for the payment of fixed base rentals monthly in advance and for the payment by tenants of a pro rata share of the real estate taxes, insurance, utilities and common area maintenance of the shopping center as well as payment to us of a percentage of the tenant’s sales. We received percentage rents of $63,031, $185,620 and $247,994 for the fiscal years 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively, and these amounts represented 0.2%, 0.7% and 1.0%, respectively, of our total revenue for these periods. Included in those amounts were percentage rents from Kmart of $-0-, $106,282 and $162,419 for fiscal years 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. Leases with Borders do not contain percentage rent provisions. Leases with Walgreen do contain percentage rent provisions; however no percentage rent was received from Walgreen during these periods. Some of our leases require us to make roof and structural repairs, as needed.

Development and Acquisition Summary

     During 2004 we completed the development of two (2) freestanding net leased properties that added 28,210 square feet of gross leasable area to our operating portfolio and cost approximately $6.7 million. The properties are located in Flint, Michigan and are leased to Walgreen Co.

     During 2004 we acquired three (3) freestanding net leased properties that added 27,626 square feet of gross leasable area to our operating portfolio and cost approximately $10.1 million. The properties are located in Webster, New York, Albion, New York and Lansing, Michigan and are leased to Eckerd Drugs (2) and the Fajita Factory.

     During 2004, Borders, our tenant, in two joint venture properties located in Ann Arbor, Michigan and Boynton Beach, Florida repaid $13.8 million that had been contributed by our joint venture partner. As a result of this repayment we became the sole member of the limited liability companies holding the properties. Total assets of the two properties were approximately $13.8 million.

     During 2004 we completed the sale of a single tenant property for $2.2 million. The property was leased to Kmart and was located in Perrysburg, Ohio.

Major Tenants

     The following table sets forth certain information with respect to our major tenants:

     Borders Group, Inc., (Borders), is a FORTUNE 500 company that trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “BGP”. Borders, is a leading global retailer of books, music, movies and other information and entertainment items. Headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan, Borders operates over 460 Borders Books and Music stores in the United States, as well as 41 international Borders stores, approximately 700 Waldenbooks locations and three United Kingdom based Books etc. stores. BGI employs more than 32,000 people worldwide. We derive approximately 32% of our annualized base rent as of December 31, 2004 from Borders. Borders has reported that its annual revenues for its 2003 fiscal year ended January 25, 2004 were approximately $3,731,000,000; its annual net income for 2003 was approximately $120,000,000 and its total stockholders’ equity at fiscal year end 2003 was approximately of $1,153,000,000.

12

     Walgreen is a leader of the U.S. chain drugstore industry and trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “WAG”. It operates over 4,580 stores in 44 states and Puerto Rico and has total assets of approximately $13.3 billion as of August 31, 2004. As of September 15, 2004, Walgreen had a Standard and Poor’s rating of A+ and a Moody’s rating of Aa3. We derived approximately 18% of our annualized base rent as off December 31, 2004 from Walgreen. For its fiscal year ended August 31, 2004, Walgreen reported that its annual net sales were $37,508,200,000 and its annual net income was $1,360,200,000 and that it had shareholders’ equity of $8,228,000,000.

     Kmart is a retailer that operates over 1,500 stores following it emergence from bankruptcy proceedings in May 2003. Kmart’s principal business is general merchandise retailing through a chain of department stores. We derived approximately 15% of our annualized base rent as of December 31, 2004 from Kmart. As of October 27, 2004 Kmart had total liabilities of $4,606,000,000 and shareholders equity of $3,059,000,000. All of our Kmart properties are in the “Big K” format and these Kmart properties average 85,000 square feet per property. In November 2004, Kmart announced it was merging with Sears, Roebuck and Co

     The financial information set forth above with respect to Borders, Walgreen and Kmart was derived from the annual reports on Form 10-K filed by Borders and Walgreen with the SEC with respect to their 2003 fiscal years and the quarterly report on form 10-Q filed by Kmart with the SEC with respect to the third quarter of 2004. Additional information regarding Borders, Walgreen or Kmart may be found in their respective public filings. These filings can be accessed at www.sec.gov.

Location of Properties in the Portfolio

13

Lease Expirations

     The following table shows lease expirations for the next 10 years for our community shopping centers and wholly-owned freestanding properties, assuming that none of the tenants exercise renewal options.

     We have made preliminary contact with the 19 tenants whose leases expire in 2005. Of those tenants, seven (7) tenants, at their option, have the right to extend their lease term; ten (10) tenants have leases expiring in 2005 and we expect to negotiate lease extensions; and two (2) tenants have a month to month lease arrangement.

Annualized Base Rent of our Properties

     The following is a breakdown of base rents in place at December 31, 2004 for each type of retail tenant:

     (2) Includes the following regional tenants: Roundy’s Foods, Dunham’s Sports, Christopher Banks, Beal’s Department Stores and Hollywood Video.

14

Freestanding Properties

     Forty-one (41) of our Properties are freestanding properties which at December 31, 2004 were leased to Borders (18), Circuit City Stores (1), Rite Aid (1), Eckerd Drugs (2), Fajita Factory (1), Citizens Bank (1), Kmart (2), Walgreen (14) and Wal-Mart (1). Our freestanding properties provided $17,469,475, or approximately 61.6% of our total annualized base rent as of December 31, 2004, at an average base rent per square foot of $11.95. These properties contain, in the aggregate, 1,405,046 square feet of gross leasable area or approximately 41% of our total gross leasable area. Our freestanding properties tend to have high traffic counts, are generally located in densely populated areas and are leased to a single tenant on a long term basis. Thirty-two (32) of our forty-one (41) freestanding properties were developed by us. Five (5) of our 41 freestanding properties, although not developed by us, were acquired as part of our relationship with Borders. As of December 31, 2004 our freestanding properties have a weighted average lease term of 15.3 years.

     Our freestanding properties range in size from 4,426 to 458,729 square feet of gross leasable area and are located in the following states: California (1), Florida (3), Indiana (1), Kansas (2), Maryland (2), Michigan (22), Nebraska (2), New York (2), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (4) and Pennsylvania (1).

Freestanding Properties

15

Joint Venture Properties

     During 1996, seven free-standing properties which we leased to Borders, including Borders’ current corporate headquarters, its former headquarters building and properties operated as Borders Books and Music were developed or acquired directly by seven limited liability companies which we identify as joint ventures, but which are accounted for by us as partnerships. In July 2004, we acquired the interest of our final joint venture partner. Of the seven joint venture properties, we have entered into long-term leases with Borders for six properties. With respect to the seventh property located in Ann Arbor, Michigan, a lease has not been executed because we have not been able to reach agreement with our tenant, Borders, concerning the rental rate. On October 22, 2004, we filed a complaint against Borders pursuant to which we are seeking a judgment ordering Borders to execute a lease for the Ann Arbor property at our determined rental rate. Borders filed an answer disputing our rent calculation and a counterclaim against the plaintiff and a third party complaint against Agree Realty Corporation, seeking a declaratory judgment relating to the rent payable under the long-term lease, damages and other relief. Our Company and Borders have agreed to engage in a non-binding facilitation process in an effort to resolve the dispute. This process is expected to commence during March 2005. The acquired properties are located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Omaha, Nebraska, Indianapolis, Indiana, Boynton Beach, Florida, Tulsa, Oklahoma and Ann Arbor, Michigan (two properties).

16

Community Shopping Centers

     Thirteen (13) of our properties are community shopping centers ranging in size from 20,000 to 241,458 square feet of gross leaseable area. The community shopping centers are located in five states as follows: Florida (1), Illinois (1), Kentucky (1), Michigan (7) and Wisconsin (3). Our community shopping centers tend to be located in high traffic, market dominant centers in which customers of our tenants purchase day-to-day necessities. Our community shopping centers are anchored by national tenants.

     The location, general character and primary occupancy information with respect to the community shopping centers as of December 31, 2004 are set forth below:

17

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

     On October 22, 2004, we filed a complaint against Borders pursuant to which we are seeking a judgment ordering Borders to execute a lease for the Ann Arbor property at our determined rental rate. Borders filed an answer disputing our rent calculation and a counterclaim against the plaintiff and a third party complaint against Agree Realty Corporation, seeking a declaratory judgment relating to the rent payable under the long-term lease, damages and other relief. Our Company and Borders have agreed to engage in a non-binding facilitation process in an effort to resolve the dispute.

     We are not presently involved in any other litigation nor, to our knowledge, is any other litigation threatened against us, except for routine litigation arising in the ordinary course of business which is expected to be covered by our liability insurance.

ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS

     No matter was submitted to a vote of security holders during the fourth quarter of 2004.

18

Part II

ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS

     Our common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “ADC”. The following table sets forth the high and low sales prices of our common stock, as reported on the New York Stock Exchange Composite Tape, and the dividends declared per share of Common Stock by us for each calendar quarter in the last two fiscal years. Dividends were paid in the periods immediately subsequent to the periods in which such dividends were declared.

Market Information

     At December 31, 2004, there were 6,487,846 shares of our common stock issued and outstanding which were held by approximately 215 stockholders of record. The stockholders of record do not reflect persons or entities who held their shares in nominee or “street” name.

     We intend to continue to declare quarterly dividends to our shareholders. However, our distributions are determined by our board of directors and will depend on a number of factors, including the amount of our funds from operations, the financial and other condition of our properties, our capital requirements, our annual distribution requirements under the provisions of the Code applicable to REITs and such other factors as our board of directors deems relevant.

     During the year ended December 31, 2004, we did not sell any unregistered securities, except the grant, under our 1994 Stock Incentive Plan (the Plan), of 41,126 shares of restricted stock to certain of our employees. The transfer restrictions on such shares lapse in equal annual installments over a five-year period from the date of the grant, but the holder thereof is entitled to receive dividends on all such shares from the date of the grant. On January 1, 2004 the Company redeemed 6,000 shares of restricted stock previously issued under the Plan.

     In January 2005 we priced a public offering of 1,000,000 shares or our common stock at an offering price of $28.28 per share resulting in net proceeds of approximately $27.1 million. In February 2005 the underwriters exercised their over allotment option for an additional 150,000 shares at the same per share price resulting in net proceeds of approximately $4.1 million.

19

ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

     The following table sets forth our selected financial information on a historical basis and should be read in conjunction with “Management Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and all of the financial statements and notes thereto included elsewhere in this Form 10-K. Certain amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current presentation of discontinued operations. The balance sheet for the periods ending December 31, 2000 through 2004 and operating date for each of the periods presented were derived from our audited financial statements.

Selected Financial Data

20

Overview

     We were established to continue to operate and expand the retail property business of our predecessor. We commenced our operations in April 1994. Our assets are held by, and all operations are conducted through, Agree Limited Partnership (the Operating Partnership), of which Agree Realty Corporation is the sole general partner and held a 90.59% interest as of December 31, 2004. We are operating so as to qualify as a real estate investment trust (REIT) for federal income tax purposes.

     On August 4, 2003, we completed an offering of 1,700,000 shares of common stock at $23.50 per share; on August 12, 2003 the underwriters exercised their over allotment option for an additional 255,000 shares at the same per share price (collectively, the 2003 Offering). The net proceeds from the 2003 Offering of approximately $43.2 million were used to repay amounts outstanding under our credit facility.

     On January 25, 2005 we completed an offering of 1,000,000 shares of common stock at $28.28 per share; on February 7, 2005 the underwriter exercised its over allotment option for an additional 150,000 shares at the same per share price (collectively the 2005 Offering). The net proceeds from the 2005 Offering of approximately $31.2 million were used to repay amounts outstanding under our credit facility.

     We have thirteen (13) leases with Kmart Corporation. Eleven (11) of the Kmart stores are currently anchors in our community shopping centers and two (2) Kmart stores are freestanding net leased properties. The Kmart stores in our portfolio provided 15% of our annual base rent as of December 31, 2004. As of December 31, 2004, all of our Kmart stores were open and operating as Kmart discount stores.

     The following should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements of Agree Realty Corporation, including the respective notes thereto, which are included elsewhere in this Form 10-K.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

     In December 2004, the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 123(R), to expand and clarify SFAS No. 123 in several areas. The Statement requires companies to measure the cost of employee services received in exchange for an award of an equity instrument based on the grant-date fair value of the award. The cost is recognized over the requisite service period (usually the vesting period) for the estimated number of instruments where service is expected to be rendered. This statement is effective for the interim reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2005. We do not expect that our financial statements will be materially impacted by SFAS No. 123(R).

     In May 2003, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”) issued SFAS No. 150, “Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Both Liabilities and Equity” (“SFAS 150”). The objective of SFAS 150 is to establish standards for how an issuer classifies and measures certain financial instruments with characteristics of both liabilities and equity. In November 2003, the FASB indefinitely delayed the effective date for certain mandatory redeemable non-controlling interests in consolidated financial statements. Adoption of SFAS 150 did not have an impact on the results of operations or financial position of the Company.

21

Critical Accounting Policies

     In the course of developing and evaluating accounting policies and procedures, we use estimates, assumptions and judgments to determine the most appropriate methods to be applied. Such processes are used in determining capitalization of costs related to real estate investments, potential impairment of real estate investments, operating cost reimbursements, and taxable income.

     Real estate assets are stated at cost less accumulated depreciation. All costs related to planning, development and construction of buildings prior to the date they become operational, including interest and real estate taxes during the construction period, are capitalized for financial reporting purposes and recorded as property under development until construction has been completed. Subsequent to completion of construction, expenditures for property maintenance are charged to operations as incurred, while significant renovations are capitalized. Depreciation of the buildings is recorded on the straight-line method using an estimated useful life of forty years.

     In determining the fair value of real estate investments, we consider future cash flow projections on a property by property basis, current interest rates and current market conditions of the geographical location of each property.

     Substantially all of our leases contain provisions requiring tenants to pay as additional rent a proportionate share of operating expenses (Operating Cost Reimbursements) such as real estate taxes, repairs and maintenance, insurance, etc. The related revenue from tenant billings is recognized in the same period the expense is recorded.

     We have elected to be taxed as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code), commencing with our 1994 tax year. As a result, we are not subject to federal income taxes to the extent that we distribute annually at lease 90% of our taxable income to our shareholders and satisfy certain other requirements defined in the Code. Accordingly, no provision was made for federal income taxes in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

Comparison of Year Ended December 31, 2004 to Year Ended December 31, 2003

     Minimum rental income increased $2,672,000, or 11%, to $26,778,000 in 2004, compared to $24,106,000 in 2003. The increase resulted from rental increases of $251,000 from existing properties; an increase of $909,000 due to additional rent resulting from the acquisition of our joint venture partner’s interest in two joint venture properties in 2003 and two joint venture properties in 2004; an increase of $640,000 from the acquisition of one property in 2003 and three properties in 2004; an increase of $533,000 from the development of one property in 2003 and two properties in 2004; and the receipt of a lease termination payment from Kmart with regard to their Lakeland, Florida store in the amount of $339,000.

     Percentage rents decreased $123,000, or 66%, to $63,000 in 2004, compared to $186,000 in 2003. The decrease was primarily the result of decreased tenant sales ($89,000) and the refund of ($34,000) pertaining to percentage rent paid in error by a tenant in 2003.

     Operating cost reimbursements increased $123,000, or 4%, to $3,055,000 in 2004, compared to $2,932,000 in 2003. Operating cost reimbursement increased due to the increase in the reimbursable property operating expenses as explained below. Included in 2004 and 2003 operating cost reimbursements are bad debt recoveries of $100,000 and $65,000, respectively as a result of the decrease in the allowance for bad debts.

     Other income increased $30,000 to $33,000 in 2004, compared to $3,000 in 2003. Other income increased due to the sale of signage at one of our properties.

     Real estate taxes increased $33,000, or 2%, to $1,806,000 in 2004 compared to $1,773,000 in 2003. The increase is the result of general assessment increases on the properties and additional real estate taxes related to a closed Kmart store.

22

     Property operating expenses (shopping center maintenance, snow removal, insurance and utilities) increased $72,000, or 4%, to $1,980,000 in 2004 compared to $1,908,000 in 2003. The increase was the result of a reduction in shopping center maintenance expenses of ($73,000); increased snow removal costs of $98,000; a decrease in utility costs of ($7,000); and an increase in insurance costs of $54,000 in 2004 versus 2003.

     Land lease payments remained constant at $737,000 for 2004 and 2003.

     General and administrative expenses increased $573,000, or 25%, to $2,848,000 in 2004 compared to $2,275,000 in 2003. The increase was primarily the result of an increase in compensation related expenses of $244,000; increased general state taxes of $80,000; increased contracted services to investigate development opportunities of $196,000; costs associated with Sarbanes-Oxley compliance of $24,000 and property management related expenses of $23,000. General and administrative expenses as a percentage of rental income increased from 9.4% for 2003 to 10.6% for 2004.

     Depreciation and amortization increased $413,000, or 10%, to $4,437,000 in 2004 compared to $4,024,000 in 2003. The increase was the result the acquisition of one property in 2003 and three properties in 2004; the acquisition of the joint venture partner’s interest in one joint venture property in 2003 and two Joint Venture Properties in 2004 and the development of two properties in 2003 and two properties in 2004.

     Interest expense decreased $1,177,000, or 21%, to $4,507,000 in 2002, from $5,684,000 in 2003. The decrease in interest expense was the result of decreased borrowings as a result of the reduction in outstanding indebtedness from the net proceeds from the issuance of additional common stock.

     Early extinguishment of debt totaled $961,000 in 2003, as a result of our repaying in 2003 three mortgages totaling approximately $37,000,000 prior to their scheduled maturity. In connection with these repayments we incurred pre-payment penalties of $555,000 and wrote-off unamortized mortgage costs in the amount of $406,000. There was no early extinguishment of debt in 2004.

     Equity in net income of unconsolidated entities decreased $221,000 to $217,000 in 2004 compared to $438,000 in 2003 as a result of the acquisition of the joint venture partner’s interest in one joint venture property in 2003 and two joint venture properties in 2004.

     The Company’s income before minority interest and discontinued interest increased $3,526,000, or 34%, to $13,829,000 in 2004, from $10,303,000 in 2003 as a result of the foregoing factors.

Comparison of Year Ended December 31, 2003 to Year Ended December 31, 2002

     Minimum rental income increased $2,877,000, or 14%, to $24,106,000 in 2003, compared to $21,229,000 in 2002. The increase was the result of rental increases of $511,000 from existing properties; an increase of $1,953,000 due to additional rent resulting from the acquisition of our joint venture partner’s interest in three joint venture properties in 2002 and two joint venture properties in 2003; an increase of $387,000 from the development of one property in 2002 and two properties in 2003; and an increase of $26,000 from the acquisition of one property in 2003.

     Percentage rental income decreased $62,000, or 25%, to $186,000 in 2003, compared to $248,000 in 2002. The decrease was the result of a decrease in percentage rent received from Kmart of $56,000; and a decrease in percentage rent received from other tenants of $6,000.

     Operating cost reimbursements increased $386,000, or 15%, to $2,932,000 in 2003, compared to $2,546,000 in 2002. Operating cost reimbursement increased due to the increase in the reimbursable property operating expenses as explained below.

     Other income remained relatively constant at $3,000 in 2003, compared to $9,000 in 2002

23

     Real estate taxes increased $79,000, or 5%, to $1,773,000 in 2003 compared to $1,694,000 in 2002. The increase is the result of general assessment increases of $32,000 and additional real estate taxes of $47,000 which we are now required to pay as a result of the closing of the Kmart store in Lakeland, Florida.

     Property operating expenses increased $327,000, or 21%, to $1,908,000 in 2003 compared to $1,581,000 in 2002. The increase was the result of additional shopping center maintenance of $57,000; increased snow removal costs of $36,000; an increase in utility costs of $22,000; and an increase in insurance costs of $212,000 in 2003 versus 2002.

     Land lease payments remained relatively constant at $737,000 for 2003 and $739,000 in 2002.

     General and administrative expenses increased $263,000, or 13%, to $2,275,000 in 2003 compared to $2,012,000 in 2002. The increase was the result of increased compensation related expenses of $179,000; increased general state taxes of $50,000; and increased property management related expenses of $34,000. General and administrative expenses as a percentage of rental income increased from 9.2% for 2002 to 9.3% for 2003.

     Depreciation and amortization increased $370,000, or 10%, to $4,024,000 in 2003 compared to $3,654,000 in 2002. The increase was the result of the development of one property in 2002 and two properties in 2003; the acquisition of one property in 2003; and the acquisition of the joint venture partner’s interest in three joint venture properties in 2002 and two joint venture properties in 2003.

     Interest expense decreased $512,000, or 8%, to $5,684,000 in 2003, from $6,196,000 in 2002. The decrease in interest expense was the result of decreased borrowings as a result of the reduction in outstanding indebtedness with the net proceeds from the issuance of additional common stock.

     Early extinguishment of debt totaled $961,000 in 2003, as a result of the Company repaying in 2003 three mortgages totaling approximately $37,000,000 prior to their scheduled maturity. In connection with these repayments we incurred pre-payment penalties of $555,000 and wrote-off unamortized mortgage costs in the amount of $406,000. There was no early extinguishment of debt in 2002.

     Equity in net income of unconsolidated entities decreased $235,000, or 35%, to $438,000 in 2003 compared to $674,000 in 2002 as a result of the acquisition of our joint venture partner’s interest in three joint venture properties in 2002 and two joint venture properties in 2003.

     The Company’s income before minority interest and discontinued operations increased $1,473,000, or 17%, to $10,303,000 in 2003, from $8,830,000 in 2002 as a result of the foregoing factors.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

     Our principal demands for liquidity are distributions to our shareholders, debt service, development of new properties and future property acquisitions.

     During the quarter ended December 31, 2004, we declared a quarterly dividend of $.49 per share. The dividend was paid on January 6, 2005 to holders of record on December 23, 2004.

     As of December 31, 2004, we had total mortgage indebtedness of $53,808,689 with a weighted average interest rate of 6.63%. Future scheduled annual maturities of mortgages payable for the years ending December 31 are as follows: 2005 - $2,189,578; 2006 - $2,454,764; 2007 - $2,621,920; 2008 - $2,781,076; 2009 - $2,970,466. The mortgage debt is all fixed rate, self-amortizing debt.

     In addition, the Operating Partnership has in place a $50 million credit facility with Standard Federal Bank, as the agent (Credit Facility), which is guaranteed by the Company. The Credit Facility matures in November 2006 and can be extended for an additional three years. During the three year extension period we will have no further ability to borrow under this facility and will be required to repay a portion of the unpaid principal on a quarterly basis. Advances under the Credit Facility bear interest within a range of one-month to six-month LIBOR plus 150

24

basis points to 213 basis points or the lender’s prime rate, at the our option, based on certain factors such as debt to property value and debt service coverage. The Credit Facility is used to fund property acquisitions and development activities and is secured by most of the properties which are not otherwise encumbered and properties to be acquired or developed. As of February 15, 2005, $13,000,000 was outstanding under the Credit Facility bearing a weighted average interest rate of 3.87%.

     We also have in place a $5 million line of credit (Line of Credit), which matures on June 30, 2005, and which we expect to renew for an additional 12-month period. The Line of Credit bears interest at the lender’s prime rate less 50 basis points or 175 basis points in excess of the one-month LIBOR rate, at our option. The purpose of the Line of Credit is to provide working capital and fund land options and start-up costs associated with new projects. As of February 15, 2005, $-0- was outstanding under the Line of Credit.

     The following table outlines our contractual obligations (in thousands) as of December 31, 2004.

     We have three development projects under construction that will add an additional 44,199 square feet of GLA to our portfolio. The projects are expected to be completed during the second quarter of 2005. Additional funding required for this project is estimated to be approximately $5,500,000 and will come from the Credit Facility.

     We intend to meet our short-term liquidity requirements, including capital expenditures related to the leasing and improvement of the properties, through cash flow provided by operations and the Line of Credit. We also have restricted cash available to fund future real estate investments. We believe that adequate cash flow will be available to fund our operations and pay dividends in accordance with REIT requirements. We may obtain additional funds for future development or acquisitions through other borrowings or the issuance of additional shares of common stock. We intend to incur additional debt in a manner consistent with our policy of maintaining a ratio of total debt (including construction and acquisition financing) to total market capitalization of 65% or less. We believe that these financing sources will enable us to generate funds sufficient to meet both our short-term and long-term capital needs.

     We plan to begin construction of additional pre-leased developments and may acquire additional properties, which will initially be financed by the Credit Facility and Line of Credit. We will periodically refinance short-term construction and acquisition financing with long-term debt and / or equity. Upon completion of refinancing, we intend to lower the ratio of total debt to market capitalization to 50% or less. Nevertheless, we may operate with debt levels or ratios, which are in excess of 50% for extended periods of time prior to such refinancing.

Inflation

     Our leases generally contain provisions designed to mitigate the adverse impact of inflation on net income. These provisions include clauses enabling us to pass through to our tenants certain operating costs, including real estate taxes, common area maintenance, utilities and insurance, thereby reducing our exposure to cost increases and operating expenses resulting from inflation. Certain of our leases contain clauses enabling us to receive percentage rents based on tenants’ gross sales, which generally increase as prices rise, and, in certain cases, escalation clauses, which generally increase rental rates during the term of the leases. In addition, expiring tenant leases permit us to seek increased rents upon re-lease at market rates if rents are below the then existing market rates.

25

Funds from Operations

     We consider Funds from Operations (“FFO”) to be a useful supplemental measure to evaluate our operating performance because, by excluding gains or losses on dispositions and excluding depreciation, FFO can help an investor compare the operating performance of our real estate between periods or compare such performance to that of different companies. Management uses FFO as a supplemental measure to conduct and evaluate our business because there are certain limitations associated with using GAAP net income by itself as the primary measure of our operating performance. Historical cost accounting for real estate assets in accordance with GAAP implicitly assumes that the value of real estate assets diminishes predictably over time. Since real estate values instead have historically risen or fallen with market conditions, management believes that the presentation of operating results for real estate companies that uses historical cost accounting is insufficient by itself.

     FFO is defined by the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, Inc. (NAREIT) to mean net income computed in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), excluding gains (or losses) from sales of property, plus real estate related depreciation and amortization. FFO should not be considered as an alternative to net income as the primary indicator of our operating performance or as an alternative to cash flow as a measure of liquidity. While we adhere to the NAREIT definition of FFO in making our calculation, our method of calculating FFO may not be comparable to the methods used by other REITs and accordingly may be different from similarly titled measures reported by other companies.

     The following table illustrates the calculation of FFO for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002:

ITEM 7A   QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK

     We are exposed to interest rate risk primarily through our borrowing activities. There is inherent roll over risk for borrowings as they mature and are renewed at current market rates. The extent of this risk is not quantifiable or predictable because of the variability of future interest rates and our future financing requirements.

     Our interest rate risk is monitored using a variety of techniques. The table below presents the principal payments (in thousands) and the weighted average interest rates on remaining debt, by year of expected maturity to evaluate the expected cash flows and sensitivity to interest rate changes.

26

     The fair value (in thousands) is estimated at $54,000 and $39,200 for fixed rate debt and variable rate debt, respectively.

     The table above incorporates those exposures that exist as of December 31, 2004; it does not consider those exposures or position, which could arise after that date. As a result, our ultimate realized gain or loss with respect to interest rate fluctuations will depend on the exposures that arise during the period and interest rates.

     The Company does not enter into financial instrument transactions for trading or other speculative purposes or to manage interest rate exposure.

     A 10% adverse change in interest rates on the portion of the Company’s debt bearing interest at variable rates would result in an increase in interest expense of approximately $153,000.

     The financial statements and supplementary data are listed in the Index to Financial Statements and Financial Statement Schedules appearing on Page F-1 of this Form 10-K and are included in this Form 10-K following page F-1.

     During our last two fiscal years, there have been no changes in the independent accountants or disagreements with such accountants as to accounting and financial disclosures of the type required to be disclosed in this Item 9.

     Under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, we conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures, as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), as of the end of the period covered by this report (the “Evaluation Date”).

     Based on this evaluation, and due to the material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting (as described below in Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting), our chief executive officer and chief financial officer concluded that as of December 31, 2004, our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in reports that we file or submit under the Securities Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in SEC rules and forms. There was no change in our internal control over financial reporting during its most recently completed fiscal quarter that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect our internal control over financial reporting.

     Our audit committee will engage independent third party consultants to perform periodic reviews of our financial reporting process to help mitigate the material weakness in our internal controls described in Management’s Report on Internal Control and Financial Reporting.

     Because of its inherent limitations, our disclosure controls and procedures may not prevent or detect misstatements. A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issued and instances of fraud, if any, have been detected.

27

Report of Management on Agree Realty Corporation’s Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

     We, as members of management of Agree Realty Corporation, are responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f). Internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of our assets; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that our receipts and expenditures are being made only in accordance with authorizations of our management and directors; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of our assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

     Because of its inherent limitations, our internal controls and procedures may not prevent or detect misstatements. A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, have been detected. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies and procedures may deteriorate.

     Management has identified and reported to the audit committee a material weakness in our internal controls regarding the segregation of duties resulting from the fact that we do not have an accounting staff sufficient to enable us to comply with acceptable internal controls under Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley of 2002. At December 31, 2004, we had seven employees, one of which (our Chief Financial Officer) was engaged full time in the period-end financial reporting process.

     We, under the supervision of and with the participation of our management, including the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, assessed the our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, based on criteria for effective internal control over financial reporting described in “Internal Control – Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. As a result of the material weakness described above, management has concluded that our internal control was not effective as of December 31, 2004.

     Management’s assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting has been audited by BDO Seidman, LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in their report that is included herein.

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

     To the Board of Directors and Owners of Agree Realty Corporation

     We have audited management’s assessment, included in the accompanying “Report of Management on Agree Realty Corporation’s Internal Control Over Financial Reporting”, that Agree Realty Corporation (the “Company”) did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, because of the effect of the lack of segregation of duties over the period-end financial reporting process, based on criteria established in “Internal Control-Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (the COSO criteria). Agree Realty Corporation’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assessment and an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.

     We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether

28

effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, evaluating management’s assessment, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

     A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

     Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

     A material weakness is a control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, that results in more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected. The following material weakness has been identified and included in management’s assessment. The Company has identified a material weakness as a result of the lack of segregation of duties in the period-end financial reporting process. The Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) is the only employee with any significant knowledge of generally accepted accounting principles. The CFO is also the sole employee in charge of the general ledger (including the preparation of routine and non-routine journal entries and journal entries involving accounting estimates), the preparation of account reconciliations, the selection of accounting principles, and the preparation of interim and annual financial statements (including report combinations, consolidation entries and footnote disclosures) in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. This material weakness was considered in determining the nature, timing, and extent of audit tests applied in our audit of the 2004 financial statements, and this report does not affect our report dated February 11, 2005 on those financial statements.

     In our opinion, management’s assessment that Agree Realty Corporation did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, is fairly stated, in all material respects, based on the COSO criteria. Also, in our opinion, because of the effect of the material weakness described above on the achievement of the objectives of the control criteria, Agree Realty Corporation has not maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, based on criteria established in “Internal Control – Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (“COSO”).

BDO Seidman, LLP
Troy, Michigan
February 11, 2005

Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting

     There were not changes in our internal control over financial reporting identified in connection with the above-referenced evaluation by management of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting that occurred during our fourth quarter ended December 31, 2004.

29

PART III

     Incorporated herein by reference to our definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the year covered by this Form 10-K with respect to its Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held on May 9, 2005.

     Incorporated herein by reference to our definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the year covered by this Form 10-K with respect to its Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held on May 9, 2005.

     The following table summarizes the equity compensation plans under which the Company’s common stock may be issued as of December 31, 2004.

     Incorporated herein by reference from our definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Form 10-K with respect to its Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held on May 9, 2005.

     Incorporated herein by reference from our definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Form 10-K with respect to its Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held on May 9, 2005.

     Incorporated herein by reference from our definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Form 10-K with respect to its Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held on May 9, 2005.

30

PART IV

31

32

33

SIGNATURES

     PURSUANT to the requirements of Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

     PURSUANT to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the Registrant and in the capacities indicated on the 14^th day of March 2005.

34

Agree Realty Corporation

Financial Statements
Years Ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002

Agree Realty Corporation

Index

F - 1

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors and Owners of
Agree Realty Corporation
Farmington Hills, Michigan

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Agree Realty Corporation (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2004. We have also audited the schedule listed in the accompanying index. These financial statements and the schedule are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and the schedule based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the Standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and the schedule are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements and the schedule. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements and the schedule. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Agree Realty Corporation at December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2004 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Also, in our opinion, the schedule presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.

We have also audited, in accordance with the Standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the effectiveness of Agree Realty Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, based on criteria established in “Internal Control – Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) and our report dated February 11, 2005 expressed an unqualified opinion on management’s assessment of, and an adverse opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting.

BDO SEIDMAN, LLP

Troy, Michigan
February 11, 2005

F - 2

Agree Realty Corporation

Consolidated Balance Sheets