A-S-P Associates v. City of Raleigh
1979 N.C. LEXIS 1362, 258 S.E.2d 444, 298 N.C. 207 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipal ordinance that creates a historic district and regulates the exterior appearance of structures, including new construction, to prevent development 'incongruous with the historic aspects of the district' is a valid exercise of the state's police power for the general welfare and does not constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.
Facts:
- A-S-P Associates (Associates) owned a vacant lot located at 210 North Person Street in the Oakwood neighborhood of Raleigh.
- The City of Raleigh (City) enacted the Oakwood Ordinance, which created an overlay historic district covering 102 acres, including Associates' property.
- The ordinance required any property owner seeking to build, alter, or move a structure to first obtain a 'certificate of appropriateness' from the Raleigh Historic District Commission.
- The commission was directed to deny certificates for any project it deemed 'incongruous with the historic aspects of the district.'
- Associates planned to construct a new office building on its vacant lot.
- The Oakwood district is characterized by a predominant, though not exclusive, Victorian architectural style.
- Property owned by the North Carolina Medical Association, which was in the same block as Associates' lot and contained a large, modern office building, was excluded from the historic district's boundaries.
- The City denied Associates' request to have its property excluded from the district as well.
Procedural Posture:
- A-S-P Associates filed a complaint against the City of Raleigh in the Superior Court of Wake County, challenging the validity of the Oakwood Ordinance.
- Associates moved for summary judgment on its constitutional claims.
- The superior court denied Associates' motion and instead granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Raleigh on all claims.
- Associates, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals, finding that material issues of fact existed, reversed the superior court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case.
- The City of Raleigh, as appellant, appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a municipal ordinance that regulates the exterior appearance of all structures, including new construction on vacant lots, within a designated historic district to prevent development 'incongruous' with the area's character violate the Due Process Clause, constitute an unlawful delegation of legislative power, or deny equal protection?
Opinions:
Majority - Brock, Justice
No, the municipal ordinance is a valid exercise of police power and is constitutional. Historic preservation is a legitimate public purpose that promotes the general welfare through educational, cultural, and economic benefits. While purely aesthetic regulation has been viewed skeptically, regulation aimed at preserving a district's historical character is a permissible use of the police power. The ordinance's means are reasonable, as maintaining the 'tout ensemble' or overall character of a district requires regulating new construction, not just existing historic buildings. A property owner's inability to develop their land for its most profitable use does not render the ordinance invalid where there is a corresponding public gain. Furthermore, the ordinance does not improperly delegate legislative power, as the standard 'incongruous with the historic aspects of the district' is a sufficient 'contextual standard' that derives clear meaning from the objectively determinable architectural character of the Oakwood neighborhood. This standard, combined with the required expertise of commission members and procedural safeguards like appeals, provides an adequate guide and check on the commission's discretion. Finally, there was no denial of equal protection because the City had a rational basis for excluding the Medical Association's property; its existing modern structure was already extremely incongruous with the district, making it not 'similarly situated' to Associates' vacant lot for the purposes of historic preservation.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes the constitutionality of historic preservation ordinances in North Carolina, expanding the concept of 'general welfare' under the police power to include the protection of historical and cultural heritage. The case is significant for its validation of aesthetic-based regulations when tied to a tangible public purpose like historic preservation, moving away from older precedents that were hostile to such zoning. By endorsing a 'contextual standard' like 'incongruity,' the court provided a flexible yet legally sufficient framework for administrative bodies to make decisions in specialized zoning areas, influencing future cases on delegation of authority. This ruling empowers municipalities to protect neighborhood character against inconsistent development, balancing private property rights with community interests in preservation.
