Constitutional – Transportation Corridor Official Map Act – Indefinite Takings of Fundamental Property Rights

Map Act corridor recordings effectuate indefinite takings of fundamental property rights at the moment of recording, and subsequent legislative rescission does not retroactively transform an indefinite taking into a temporary one for purposes of calculating just compensation.

We reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded.

This case required the Court to clarify two fundamental aspects of just compensation for takings effectuated under the now-repealed Transportation Corridor Official Map Act. In 1996, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) recorded a corridor map covering approximately 9.93 acres of land owned by Plaintiffs, restricting their fundamental rights to improve, develop, and subdivide the property. These restrictions remained in place for nearly 20 years until the General Assembly rescinded all Map Act corridors on July 11, 2016 in response to this Court’s decision in Kirby v. North Carolina Department of Transportation, which held that Map Act restrictions constituted takings by eminent domain requiring just compensation. Plaintiffs filed an inverse condemnation action in 2019 seeking compensation for the 20-year taking. After a hearing, the trial court concluded that the proper measure of damages was fair rental value, the measure of damages for a temporary taking. The Court of Appeals agreed that the 2016 legislative rescission retroactively transformed what Kirby, and Chappell v. North Carolina Department of Transportation characterized as an “indefinite” taking into a “temporary” taking, but reversed the trial court’s damages determination, directing instead that damages be calculated as “the diminution in value . . . until July 11, 2016.”

We held that Map Act corridor recordings effectuate indefinite takings of fundamental property rights at the moment of recording, and subsequent legislative rescission does not retroactively transform an indefinite taking into a temporary one for purposes of calculating just compensation. The proper measure of damages is the difference between the fair market value of the property immediately before and immediately after the corridor map recording, considering all pertinent factors including the indefinite nature of the restrictions and any effect of reduced ad valorem taxes. Expert appraisers may employ various acceptable methodologies, including comparable sales, income capitalization (which may incorporate rental value considerations), or a cost approach to determine these before-and-after fair market values, provided the ultimate comparison is between fair market values as of the date of the taking.

The Court of Appeals’ analysis erred by characterizing the taking as “temporary” based on subsequent legislative rescission. We reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded to that court for further remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including calculating just compensation based on the fair market value of the subject Property immediately before and immediately after the taking in August 1996, considering all pertinent factors including any effect of reduced ad valorem taxes.

Reversed and remanded.

Mata v. North Carolina Department of Transportation (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 010-046-25, 19 pp.) (Anita Earls, J.) Appealed from Wake County Superior Court (G. Bryan Collins, Jr., J.) Cranfill Sumner LLP, by George B. Autry, Jr., Stephanie H. Autry, and Jeremy P. Hopkins, for plaintiffs-appellees. The Banks Law Firm, P.A., by Howard B. Rhodes; North Carolina Department of Justice, by Jeanne Washburn, Assistant Attorney General; Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP, by William H. Moss; and Skidmore Law Group, PLLC, by Matthew W. Skidmore, for defendant-appellant North Carolina Department of Transportation. North Carolina Supreme Court