vested rights doctrine in North Carolina

2023One of the substantive protections of the Law of the Land Clause is the protection of “vested rights.” Godfrey v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 317 N.C. 51, 62 , 344 S.E.2d 272, 279 (1986) (stating the vested-rights doctrine “is rooted in the ‘due process of law’ and the ‘law of the land’ clauses of the federal and state constitutions”).

2023One of the substantive protections of the Law of the Land Clause is the protection of “vested rights.” Godfrey v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 317 N.C. 51, 62 , 344 S.E.2d 272, 279 (1986) (stating the vested-rights doctrine “is rooted in the ‘due process of law’ and the ‘law of the land’ clauses of the federal and state constitutions”).

2023A vested right is “a right which is otherwise secured, established, and immune from further legal metamorphosis.” Gardner v. Gardner, 300 N.C. 715 , 718–19, 268 S.E.2d 468, 471 (1980).

2023A vested right is “a right which is otherwise secured, established, and immune from further legal metamorphosis.” Gardner v. Gardner, 300 N.C. 715 , 718–19, 268 S.E.2d 468, 471 (1980).

2018As described in Browning-Ferris , the first element of a vested rights claim is that "the party has made, prior to the amendment of a zoning ordinance , expenditures or incurred contractual obligations substantial in amount, incidental to or as part of the acquisition of the building site or the construction or equipment of the proposed building[.]" Id. at 171 , 484 S.E.2d at 414 (emphasis added).

2018As described in Browning-Ferris , the first element of a vested rights claim is that "the party has made, prior to the amendment of a zoning ordinance , expenditures or incurred contractual obligations substantial in amount, incidental to or as part of the acquisition of the building site or the construction or equipment of the proposed building[.]" Id. at 171 , 484 S.E.2d at 414 (emphasis added).

2025For one, the legislature has the power to craft procedural rules and to “define the circumstances” in which a remedy is “legally cognizable and those under which it is not.” Rhyne, 358 N.C at 170 (quoting Lamb v. Wedgewood S. Corp., 308 N.C. 419, 444 (1983)).

2025Cognizant that freezing procedure and remedies in place would stagnate the law “in the face of changing societal conditions,” Lamb, 308 N.C. at 441 (cleaned up), this Court has allowed the legislature to retroactively modify remedies and amend procedural rules—including statutes of limitations, see, e.g., Strickland, 91 N.C. at 104 (“It is well settled that the legislature may change the remedy, and as the statute of limitations applies only to the remedy, that it may also change that, either by extending or shortening the time.”).

2025Cognizant that freezing procedure and remedies in place would stagnate the law “in the face of changing societal conditions,” Lamb, 308 N.C. at 441 (cleaned up), this Court has allowed the legislature to retroactively modify remedies and amend procedural rules—including statutes of limitations, see, e.g., Strickland, 91 N.C. at 104 (“It is well settled that the legislature may change the remedy, and as the statute of limitations applies only to the remedy, that it may also change that, either by extending or shortening the time.”).

2025This Court has explained that “a right created solely by the statute may [generally] be taken away by its repeal or by new legislation.” Pinkham, 227 N.C. at 78, 40 S.E.2d at 694 .

2025This Court has explained that “a right created solely by the statute may [generally] be taken away by its repeal or by new legislation.” Pinkham, 227 N.C. at 78, 40 S.E.2d at 694 .