CNBC, real estate, retailers, and Ben Graham

I caught a little bit of CNBC this AM--somebody was on talking about valuations of retailers. I didn't catch who it was. He cited three specific examples--Dillards(DDS), Shopko(SKO), and Winn-Dixie(WNDXQ), of retailers in which the value of the real estate owned by the companies alone was supposedly worth 2-3x or more times the present value of the stock in the marketplace. This is a repeat of the Kmart story. There are several names I've accumulated over the past couple years at least in part on a variation of this story as well. (TRC, JOE, ALEX, TPL, PCL--but in these cases the land is mostly undeveloped)
I got to thinking a little more "big picture" and maybe I'm off base. Maybe somebody can point out where I'm wrong, or where I don't get it. It seems strange that there could be a whole group of large companies like this, where their real estate holdings alone are more worth to somebody else for something else than the value of their business as a going concern. That's Ben Graham cigar butt stuff, but writ very large. And typically that scenario, of companies selling for less than their breakup value is something you see in either 1) the occasional small- or micro-cap, or 2) at the bottom of a bear market--think 1937 or 1977.
I can think of only a handful of explanations for this--1) the info is flat out wrong. Somebody is screwing up their estimates of the value of the land, or this inefficiency is not nearly as widespread as it is being made to seem, etc. 2) there is some sort of "barrier" to using the land for something other than the present retail store--legal, regulatory, administrative, environmental, etc. or 3) the stocks are not undervalued, but the land is overvalued because we are in a real estate bubble, and if all that property really came on the market the prices would tank. I guess that's the one I'm leaning toward. What am I missing?