MLC Automotive, LLC v. Town of Southern Pines
207 N.C. App. 555
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Plaintiffs purchased 21 acres in GB zoning with planned auto park, a permitted use under the town's UDO at that time.
- Plaintiffs spent substantial sums (2001–2005) to prepare for development and entered a Suzuki LOI for a dealership.
- Town rezoned the property to OS in Oct 2005, prohibiting the proposed use, after contentious design reviews and community opposition.
- Plaintiffs asserted a common law vested right based on reliance on zoning approval and substantial expenditures; trial court granted them partial summary judgment on vested rights but defendants on tort claims.
- The court affirmed denial of the vested right claim, holding no common law vested right arose from reliance on existing zoning or non-permit letters; it affirmed summary judgment for defendants on tort claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does common law vested right exist here? | Leith relied on GB zoning and expenditures to develop an auto park. | Purchase and reliance on existing zoning is insufficient for a vested right; requires valid government approval and/or absence of zoning. | No common law vested right based on existing zoning or letters; investments not tied to valid approval. |
| Are the 2001 letters and similar governmental communications sufficient approval for vested rights? | Letters confirming GB use and automobile sales create government approval for vested rights. | Such letters do not constitute final or specific approval; they do not address a particular project. | Letters are not adequate government approval to create a vested right. |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of Hillsborough v. Smith, 276 N.C. 48 (1969) (purchase reliance alone does not create vested rights contrary to later zoning)
- Campsites Unlimited, Inc. v. County, 287 N.C. 493 (1975) (substantial expenditures may create vested rights when no zoning exists or permits are absent)
- Russell v. Guilford County Bd. of Comm'rs, 100 N.C. App. 541 (1990) (reliance on current zoning discussed; dicta on substantial expenditures)
- Sunderhaus v. Bd. of Adjustment of Town of Biltmore Forest, 94 N.C. App. 324 (1989) (recognizes reliance with permit requirements; dicta on broader vested rights)
- Browning-Ferris Indus. of South Atlantic, Inc. v. Wake County, 126 N.C. App. 168 (1997) (letters confirming use insufficient without final project approval)
- Huntington Props., LLC v. Currituck County, 153 N.C. App. 218 (2002) (final interpretation required; project-specific approval matters)
- Robins v. Town of Hillsborough, 361 N.C. 193 (2007) (clarifies Finch and vested rights framework)
- Carolina Water Serv., Inc. of N.C. v. Town of Atlantic Beach, 121 N.C. App. 23 (1995) (legislative authorization can justify municipal action; no improper interference)