Skip to main content
  • About
  • Public Officials
  • Topics
  • Courses
  • Publications
  • Blogs
  • Resources
  • Giving
  • Knapp Library
  • MPA Degree
  • About
    As the largest
    university-based local
    government training,
    advisory, and research
    organization in the United
    States, the School of
    Government serves more
    than 12,000 public officials
    each year.
    • Mission and History
    • News
    • Faculty and Staff
    • School of Government Foundation
    • Diversity and Inclusion
    • Visitor Information
    • Employment
    • SERVICE Mural
    • Our Impact
    • Browse by Role
      The School provides
      content and resources for a
      wide array of local
      government and judicial
      officials in North Carolina.
      Select your role to explore
      all related content.
      Local and State Government
      • Appointed Board Members
      • Attorneys
      • City and County Clerks
      • City and County Managers
      • Community and Economic Development Professionals
      • Elected Officials
      • Health and Human Services Professionals
      • HR Professionals
      • IT Professionals
      • Managers and Supervisors
      • Planning and Zoning Professionals
      • Tax and Finance Officials
      Courts and Judicial Administration
      • Appellate Court Judges
      • Clerks of Court
      • Criminal Defense Attorneys
      • District Court Judges
      • Guardians ad Litem
      • Indigent Defense
      • Jailers and Corrections Officers
      • Judicial Administrators
      • Juvenile Court
      • Law Enforcement Officers
      • Magistrates
      • Prosecutors
      • Superior Court Judges
    • Browse by Topic
      The School provides content
      and resources on a wide array
      of topics in local government
      and judicial administration in
      North Carolina.
      Select a topic to explore all
      related content.
      Local and State Government
      • State Government
      • Planning and Development Regulation
      • Community and Economic Development
      • Environment
      • General Structure and Authority
      • Health and Human Services
      • Human Resources
      • Information Technology
      • Intergovernmental Relations
      • Leadership and Management
      • Local Government Finance
      • Open Government
      • Other Local Government Functions and Services
      Courts and Judicial Administration
      • Civil Commitment and Guardianship
      • Civil Law and Procedure
      • Corrections
      • Criminal Law and Procedure
      • Evidence
      • Family Law
      • Indigent Defense
      • Judicial Administration and Authority
      • Juvenile Law
      • Motor Vehicle Law
    • Courses
      The School of Government
      offers up to 200 courses,
      workshops, webinars, and
      professional conferences
      each year.
      All Courses
      • Courses
      • Upcoming Courses
      • Online Modules
      • Webinar
      • Webinar Series
      • Scholarship Opportunities
        Request a Transcript
      • Publications
        The School of Government
        publishes essential books,
        manuals, reports, articles,
        bulletins, and other print and
        online content related to state
        and local government.
        All Publications
        • Books
        • Book Chapters
        • Bulletins
        • Reports
        • Bulletin Series Index
          Publication Sales
        Browse
        • New Publications
        • Forthcoming Titles
        • Updates and Supplements
      • Blogs
        Faculty write for a number
        of School of Government
        blogs providing timely
        updates on emerging issues.
        • Coates' Canons: NC Local Government Law
        • Community and Economic Development
        • Community Engagement Learning Exchange
        • Death and Taxes
        • Environmental Finance
        • Environmental Law in Context
        • Facts That Matter
        • Mike's Blog
        • MPA@UNC
        • MPA Matters
        • North Carolina Criminal Law
        • On the Civil Side
        • Public Leadership
        • Resources
          The School of Government
          offers information and
          services related to a wide
          range of topics relevant to
          government and judicial
          officials—in-person and on a
          variety of platforms.
          • Blog Posts
          • Timely updates on emerging issues
          • Centers and Services
          • Specialized training/research hubs and consulting services
          • Frequently Asked Questions
          • Aggregated answers to common questions on a variety of topics
          • Knapp Library
          • Print and online materials and research expertise
          • Legal Summaries
          • Brief descriptions of legal cases, bills, or legislative activity
          • Listservs
          • Information exchanges for peers and faculty experts
          • Microsites
          • In-depth or aggregated content for local government and judicial officials
          • Tools and Apps
          • Online and mobile tools for employees on-the-go
          • Master of Public
            Administration Program
            The UNC MPA program prepares public service leaders. The program is offered in two formats: on-campus and online.
            For more information, visit mpa.unc.edu
            MPA_Logo_Large_H_
              Why an MPA?
             
              Online or on-campus?
          • Giving
            The School of Government depends on private and public support for fulfilling its mission. Your gift will make a lasting impact on the quality of government and civic participation in North Carolina.
            • The Campaign for Carolina
            • Make a Gift
            • Supporters
            • Development FAQ
             
          • Knapp Library
            The Joseph Palmer Knapp Library houses a large collection of material on state and local government, public administration, and management to support the School's instructional and research programs and the educational mission of the Master of Public Administration program. Reference and research services are available to all residents of North Carolina, and additional assistance is available to state and local government personnel, both elected and appointed.
            • Covid-19 Response
            Resources | Legal Summaries

            Moratoria

            David W. Owens
            April, 2020
            Legislative summary(ies)

            Given the time needed to complete the procedures required for adoption or amendment of development regulations or to even rezone property, local governments sometimes adopt moratoria on development to preserve the status quo while plans are made, management strategies are devised and debated, ordinances are revised, or other development management concerns are addressed. Moratoria are also sometimes used when there are insufficient public services necessary to support development, such as inadequate water supply or wastewater treatment capacity.

            Summary: 

            Given the time needed to complete the procedures required for adoption or amendment of development regulations or to even rezone property, local governments sometimes adopt moratoria on development to preserve the status quo while plans are made, management strategies are devised and debated, ordinances are revised, or other development-management concerns are addressed.[1] Moratoria are also sometimes used when there are insufficient public services necessary to support development, such as inadequate water supply or wastewater-treatment capacity.

            Local governments and the courts have long recognized the planning value of temporary moratoria in certain circumstances. The U.S. Supreme Court noted, “[M]oratoria . . . are used widely among land-use planners to preserve the status quo while formulating a more permanent development strategy. In fact, the consensus of the planning community appears to be that moratoria . . . are an essential tool of successful development.”[2] Even so, the impact of a moratorium on individual landowners can be significant for at least the duration of the moratorium. Thus it is not surprising that controversy and sometimes litigation follow a decision to apply a development moratorium.

            Some states allow use of expedited procedures to adopt an interim zoning ordinance, sometimes referred to as “stopgap zoning.” These interim ordinances typically allow existing land uses to be continued and similar uses established while more detailed and future-oriented ordinances are being prepared. This is not allowed in North Carolina. In this state, all zoning ordinances must be adopted in accordance with the procedures set by state law for zoning amendments.

            Authority and Process to Adopt

            In 2005 the General Assembly amended the zoning-enabling statutes to explicitly authorize use of development moratoria and set a number of rules regarding their use.[3]

            G.S. 160D-107 allows temporary development moratoria to be placed on any city’s or county’s development approval. This statute authorizes moratoria on “any development approval required by law.” This includes all zoning permits, land-subdivision plats, building permits, sign permits, and any other approvals required prior to development.

            Any confusion in the case law regarding which process is to be followed in adoption is clarified by these statutes, which provide that if there is an imminent threat to public health and safety, the moratorium may be adopted without notice or hearing. Otherwise, a moratorium with a duration of sixty days or less requires a single public hearing with a notice published not less than seven days in advance of the hearing; a moratorium with a duration of more than sixty days (and any extension of a moratorium so that the total duration is more than sixty days) requires a public hearing with the same two published notices required for other land use regulations. The initial notice of the hearing must be published at least ten but not more than twenty-five days prior to the day of the hearing, and the second notice must be published in a separate calendar week.

            The moratorium must be adopted as an ordinance by the city or county. The ordinance establishing it must expressly include the following four items:

             1.         a clear statement of the problems or conditions necessitating the moratorium, what courses of action other than a moratorium were considered by the city or county, and why those alternatives were not deemed adequate;

             2.         a clear statement of the development approvals subject to the moratorium and how a moratorium on those approvals will address the problems that led to its imposition;

             3.         an express date for termination of the moratorium and a statement setting forth why that duration is reasonably necessary to address the problems that led to its imposition; and

             4.         a clear statement of the actions, and the schedule for those actions, proposed to be taken by the city or county during the moratorium to address the problems that led to its imposition.

            The statutes contain several exemptions from the coverage of moratoria and limits on their use. The most significant of these is that the “permit choice” rule applies if a completed application for the development was submitted prior to the effective date of the moratorium.[4] In these instances, action of the application is suspended while the moratorium is in effect, but when permit processing resumes, the applicant has the option of having the proposed project considered under the rules in effect at the time of the application or at the time of the permit decision. A moratorium may not be applied to residential land uses if the purpose of the moratorium is to preserve the status quo while plans or ordinances are developed or updated.[5] Absent an imminent threat to public health and safety, moratoria may not be applied to projects with legally established vested rights—those with a valid outstanding building permit, an outstanding approved site-specific vesting plan, or substantial expenditures that have been made in good-faith reliance on a prior valid administrative or quasi-judicial permit or approval. Moratoria do not apply to certain projects for which complete applications have been accepted by the city or county prior to the call for a public hearing[6] to adopt the moratorium. These include special use permits and preliminary or final plats. If a preliminary plat application is subsequently approved while a moratorium is in effect, that project can also proceed to final plat approval. Moratoria may not be applied to colocation of small wireless facilities.[7]

            Renewal or extensions of moratoria are also limited by this statute. Extensions are prohibited unless the city or county has taken all reasonable and feasible steps to address the problems or conditions that led to imposition of the moratorium. An ordinance extending a moratorium must explicitly address this point, in addition to the four points noted above, and set forth any new facts or conditions warranting the extension.

            Finally, the statute provides for expedited judicial review of moratoria. Any person aggrieved by the imposition of a moratorium may petition the court for an order enjoining its enforcement. These actions are to be set for immediate hearing and are to be given priority scheduling by both trial and appellate courts. The burden is on the city or county in these challenges to show compliance with the procedural requirements of the statute regarding moratoria adoption.

            Constitutional Limitations on Moratoria

            Opponents of development moratoria have argued that a regulation that even temporarily precludes the possibility of development approvals constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property without compensation.

            The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a temporary moratorium on development approvals is not in and of itself an unconstitutional taking.Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency[8] involved development moratoria imposed on sensitive lands adjacent to Lake Tahoe while studies, planning, and development regulations were being prepared. There were two moratoria challenged in this suit, which together prevented development in the most-sensitive portions of the Lake Tahoe watershed for thirty-two months. (Other moratoria not involved in this litigation effectively extended these moratoria to six years). The plaintiff urged the Court to hold that all moratoria, no matter how short or long, violated the constitutional prohibition on taking private property without just compensation on the rationale that no economically productive use of their property could be made during the moratorium. The Court refused to accept this reasoning. The Court held that the balancing test enumerated in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York[9] should be applied in virtually all cases contending that a regulation is a taking. The Court ruled that the examination of the economic impact of the moratorium could not be applied to the period of the moratorium alone, further limiting the attempt of property owners to segment property interests when making a taking analysis.[10] Consideration of “fairness and justice” is critical, and in Tahoe-Sierra a careful analysis of all the factors involved led to a conclusion that there was no taking. The Court noted that temporary moratoria allowed time for necessary studies, public participation, and deliberation, and that the complexity of the management issues involved with developing a complex bi-state management plan justified the moratorium at issue.[11] While noting that moratoria lasting longer than a year might well warrant special skepticism, the Court concluded that the longer period was justified in this situation.

            It is legally possible, though unusual, that a moratorium can constitute an unconstitutional taking. An indefinite moratorium can constitute a taking if it deprives the landowners of all economically beneficial use of the property,[12] though it is only the extraordinary moratorium that will fall into this category. For example, in Monks v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes,[13] the city imposed a moratorium on construction of new homes in the vicinity of previous landslides in 1978. Plaintiffs owned lots that had been subject to the moratorium for thirty years. A California appellate court found that the moratorium removed all economically beneficial use of the property and that the facts did not support that these uses would be precluded by the state’s common law of public nuisance, thus the moratorium constituted an unconstitutional taking. A moratorium imposed in order to depress or freeze property values pending potential public acquisition has been held to be an unconstitutional taking by a Florida court.[14]

            While rare, other constitutional issues may arise with regard to moratoria. For example, First Amendment and parallel state constitutional rights might be implicated. In City of Woodinville v. Northside United Church of Christ,[15] the city had adopted a moratorium on all temporary-use permits within its R-1 residential district. The defendant church had two years earlier sponsored a tent encampment in a city park for homeless persons (the program involved encampments which moved around the county, staying in individual locations for ninety-day periods). During this twelve-month moratorium, the church applied for a temporary-use permit to host the encampment on its property. The town denied the permit due to the moratorium. The Washington Supreme Court held that the moratorium placed a substantial burden on the church’s religious freedom and thus violated the state’s constitutional provision on free exercise of religion. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Bronco’s Entertainment, Ltd. v. Charter Township of Van Buren[16] rejected a due-process and First Amendment–free-speech challenge to a six-month moratorium as applied to an adult business.



            [1]. Use of temporary development moratoria is not uncommon in North Carolina. Nearly 20 percent of the state’s cities and counties responding to a 2008 School of Government survey reported adoption of a moratorium in the previous three years. David Owens, Development Moratoria: The Law and Practice in North Carolina 8–9 (UNC School of Government, Special Series No. 26, 2009). The moratoria were most often of short duration (typically six months) and were normally focused on particular types of development. The most common reason cited for moratoria was the need to develop regulations for a particular land use, followed by needs to update plans and the lack of infrastructure to support development. Id. at 10–12.

            [2]. Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302, 337–38 (2002). Moratoria “have been found to play an important role in municipal planning. They aid in ‘bridging the gap between planning and its implementation into legal measures.’ They may, as here, be used to preserve the status quo while study of the area and its needs is completed. This moratorium on land use serves a significant public purpose.” Schaefer v. City of New Orleans, 743 F.2d 1086, 1090 (5th Cir. 1984) (upholding ten-and-one-half-month moratorium on permits for fast-food restaurants in a specified neighborhood while study conducted).

            [3]. S.L. 2005-426, §§ 5(a), 5(b).

            [4]. G.S. 160D-107(c). The permit-choice rule was applied to an application for an asphalt plant that was subject to a county moratorium in Ashe County v. Ashe County Planning Board, ___ N.C. App. ___, 829 S.E.2d 224 (2019).

            [5]. This limit was added to the statutes in 2011 by S.L. 2011-286.

            [6]. The statutes do not define what constitutes a “call for public hearing.” It is likely the time at which the governing board authorizes staff to proceed with advertisement for the hearing or when the formal notice of hearing is otherwise initiated. Also note that the subsequently adopted permit-choice rule allows an applicant for any development approval to select the old or revised rules if the rules change after an application is submitted.

            [7]. G.S. 160D-107(c).

            [8]. 535 U.S. 302 (2002). See also Wild River Estates, Inc. v. City of Fargo, 2005 ND 193, 705 N.W.2d 850 (twenty-one-month moratorium on building permits in floodway pending adoption of flood-hazard map not a taking).

            [9]. 438 U.S. 104, 123–24 (1978). With this test, the courts examine a challenged regulation on a case-by-case basis to consider the character of the governmental action and the economic impact on the landowner (with a particular focus on the distinct investment-backed expectations of the owner).

            [10]. When undertaking a taking analysis, the property as a whole, not just the regulated portion or the time period of the regulation, must be considered. Concrete Pipe & Prods. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust, 508 U.S. 602 (1993); Machipongo Land & Coal Co. v. Commonwealth, 569 Pa. 3, 799 A.2d 751 (2002).

            [11]. Most prior state-court decisions reached similar results.

            [12]. This categorical “total taking” test for a regulatory taking is set forth in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1027 (1992).

            [13]. 167 Cal. App. 4th 263, 84 Cal. Rptr. 3d 75 (2008).

            [14]. Joint Ventures, Inc. v. Dep’t of Transp., 563 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1990). This case involved a reservation of land for future purchase. The state imposed a five-year moratorium (which could be extended an additional five years) on any development permits on a 6.5-acre tract that the Department of Transportation needed for stormwater drainage for a future highway-widening project. The court concluded this was essentially the same as deliberately attempting to depress land values in anticipation of condemnation of the property.

            [15]. 166 Wash. 2d 633, 211 P.3d 406 (2009) (noting that the Washington constitution’s protections are broader than the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution). The Washington court has long vigorously protected religious free-exercise rights under the state constitution. See Munns v. Martin, 131 Wash. 2d 192, 930 P.2d 318 (1997) (invalidating fourteen-month delay imposed on conversion of historic church building to a pastoral center).

            [16]. 421 F.3d 440 (6th Cir. 2005). See also Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island, 683 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2012) (thirty-one-month moratorium on dock and pier construction not a due-process violation).

            Related statutes or bills: 
            G.S. 153A-340(h); G.S. 160A-381(e)
            Public Officials - Local and State Government Roles
            Attorneys
            Planning and Zoning Professionals
            Topics - Local and State Government
            Planning and Development Regulation

            Faculty Coordinator

            individual image for David W. Owens
            David W. Owens
            Gladys Hall Coates Professor of Public Law and Government
            owens@sog.unc.edu
            • Share on Twitter
            • Share on Facebook
            • Share on LinkedIn
            • Email

            E-mail This Page

            If you leave the subject blank, this will be default subject the message will be sent with.
            Enter the e-mail address you want to send this page to. Seperate multiple e-mail addresses with a comma.
            • About the School
            • Faculty and Staff
            • Events Calendar
            • Driving Directions
            • Knapp Library
            • Employment
            • Contact Us
            • Information Technology
            • Employee Login
            • Employee Intranet
            • Registration Account Portal
            • UNC Home Page
            • Share on Facebook
            • Share on Twitter
            • Share on LinkedIn
            Accessibility
            Knapp-Sanders Building
            Campus Box 3330, UNC Chapel Hill
            Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3330
            • T: 919 966 5381
            • F: 919 962 0654
            © Copyright 2023,
            The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill