Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 36-4-3-4 (2026)

Annexation of noncontiguous territory

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 4. (a) The legislative body of a municipality may, by ordinance, annex any of the following:

(1) Territory that is contiguous to the municipality.

(2) Territory that is not contiguous to the municipality and is occupied by a municipally owned or operated as either of the following:

(A) An airport or landing field.

(B) A wastewater treatment facility or water treatment facility. After a municipality annexes territory under this clause, the municipality may annex additional territory to enlarge the territory for the use of the wastewater treatment facility or water treatment facility only if the county legislative body approves that use of the additional territory by ordinance.

(3) Territory that is not contiguous to the municipality but is found by the legislative body to be occupied by:

(A) a municipally owned or regulated sanitary landfill, golf course, or hospital;

(B) a police station of the municipality; or

(C) a solar electric generating facility that is or will be interconnected to an electric utility owned by the municipality.

However, if territory annexed under subdivision (2) or (3) ceases to be used for the purpose for which the territory was annexed for at least one (1) year, the territory reverts to the jurisdiction of the unit having jurisdiction before the annexation if the unit that had jurisdiction over the territory still exists. If the unit no longer exists, the territory reverts to the jurisdiction of the unit that would currently have jurisdiction over the territory if the annexation had not occurred. The clerk of the municipality shall notify the offices required to receive notice of a disannexation under section 19 of this chapter when the territory reverts to the jurisdiction of the unit having jurisdiction before the annexation. Territory that is annexed under subdivision (2) (including territory that is enlarged under subdivision (2)(B) for the use of the wastewater treatment facility or water treatment facility) or subdivision (3) may not be considered a part of the municipality for purposes of annexing additional territory.

(b) This subsection applies to the following:

(1) A municipality in a county having a population of more than sixty-six thousand six hundred (66,600) and less than seventy thousand (70,000).

(2) A municipality in a county having a population of more than eighty-two thousand (82,000) and less than eighty-three thousand (83,000).

(3) A municipality in a county having a population of more than eighty thousand four hundred (80,400) and less than eighty-two thousand (82,000).

(4) A municipality in a county having a population of more than forty-six thousand (46,000) and less than forty-six thousand four hundred (46,400).

(5) A municipality in a county having a population of more than thirty-seven thousand (37,000) and less than thirty-seven thousand nine hundred (37,900).

(6) A municipality in a county having a population of more than thirty-six thousand five hundred (36,500) and less than thirty-six thousand seven hundred (36,700).

(7) A municipality in a county having a population of more than thirty-two thousand (32,000) and less than thirty-three thousand (33,000).

(8) A municipality in a county having a population of more than twenty-three thousand (23,000) and less than twenty-three thousand three hundred seventy-five (23,375).

(9) A municipality in a county having a population of more than two hundred thousand (200,000) and less than two hundred fifty thousand (250,000).

(10) A municipality in a county having a population of more than two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) and less than three hundred thousand (300,000).

(11) A municipality in a county having a population of more than thirty thousand nine hundred (30,900) and less than thirty-two thousand (32,000).

(12) A municipality in a county having a population of more than eighty thousand (80,000) and less than eighty thousand four hundred (80,400).

(13) A city having a population of more than five thousand one hundred forty (5,140) and less than five thousand two hundred (5,200).

Except as provided in subsection (c), the legislative body of a municipality to which this subsection applies may, by ordinance, annex territory that is not contiguous to the municipality, has its entire area not more than two (2) miles from the municipality's boundary, is to be used for an industrial park containing one (1) or more businesses, and is either owned by the municipality or by a property owner who consents to the annexation. However, if territory annexed under this subsection is not used as an industrial park within five (5) years after the date of passage of the annexation ordinance, or if the territory ceases to be used as an industrial park for at least one (1) year, the territory reverts to the jurisdiction of the unit having jurisdiction before the annexation if the unit that had jurisdiction over the territory still exists. If the unit no longer exists, the territory reverts to the jurisdiction of the unit that would currently have jurisdiction over the territory if the annexation had not occurred. The clerk of the municipality shall notify the offices entitled to receive notice of a disannexation under section 19 of this chapter when the territory reverts to the jurisdiction of the unit having jurisdiction before the annexation.

(c) A city in a county with a population of more than two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) and less than three hundred thousand (300,000) may not annex territory as prescribed in subsection (b) until the territory is zoned by the county for industrial purposes.

(d) Notwithstanding any other law, territory that is annexed under subsection (b) or (h) is not considered a part of the municipality for the purposes of:

(1) annexing additional territory:

(A) in a county that is not described by clause (B); or

(B) in a county having a population of more than two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) and less than three hundred thousand (300,000), unless the boundaries of the noncontiguous territory become contiguous to the city, as allowed by Indiana law;

(2) expanding the municipality's extraterritorial jurisdictional area; or

(3) changing an assigned service area under IC 8-1-2.3-6(1).

(e) As used in this section, "airport" and "landing field" have the meanings prescribed by IC 8-22-1.

(f) As used in this section, "hospital" has the meaning prescribed by IC 16-18-2-179(b).

(g) An ordinance adopted under this section must assign the territory annexed by the ordinance to at least one (1) municipal legislative body district.

(h) This subsection applies to a city having a population of more than twenty-eight thousand (28,000) and less than twenty-nine thousand (29,000). The city legislative body may, by ordinance, annex territory that:

(1) is not contiguous to the city;

(2) has its entire area not more than eight (8) miles from the city's boundary;

(3) does not extend more than:

(A) one and one-half (1 1/2) miles to the west;

(B) three-fourths (3/4) mile to the east;

(D) one-half (1/2) mile to the south;

of an interchange of an interstate highway (as designated by the federal highway authorities) and a state highway (as designated by the state highway authorities); and

(4) is owned by the city or by a property owner that consents to the annexation.

(i) This subsection applies to a city having a population of more than thirty-four thousand (34,000) and less than thirty-four thousand five hundred (34,500). The city legislative body may, by ordinance, annex territory under section 5.1 of this chapter:

(1) that is not contiguous to the city;

(2) that is south of the southernmost boundary of the city;

(3) the entire area of which is not more than four (4) miles from the city's boundary; and

(4) that does not extend more than one (1) mile to the east of a state highway (as designated by the state highway authorities).

Territory annexed under this subsection is not considered a part of the city for purposes of annexation of additional territory. A city may not require connection to a sewer installed to provide service to territory annexed under this subsection.

(j) A municipality may annex a residential development under section 5.2 of this chapter that is not contiguous to the municipality.

[Pre-Local Government Recodification Citations: 18-5-10-20 part; 18-5-10-20.1; 18-5-10-20.2; 18-5-10-29; 18-5-10-30 part; 18-5-10-30.1; 19-6-1-16.]

As added by Acts 1980, P.L.212, SEC.3. Amended by P.L.91-1985, SEC.2; P.L.379-1987(ss), SEC.12; P.L.5-1989, SEC.92; P.L.12-1992, SEC.156; P.L.62-1992, SEC.2; P.L.2-1993, SEC.202; P.L.257-1993, SEC.1; P.L.1-1994, SEC.174; P.L.166-1994, SEC.1; P.L.79-1996, SEC.2; P.L.255-1997(ss), SEC.9; P.L.2-1998, SEC.83; P.L.170-2002, SEC.141; P.L.111-2005, SEC.3; P.L.182-2009(ss), SEC.402; P.L.119-2012, SEC.185; P.L.207-2014, SEC.1; P.L.183-2016, SEC.8; P.L.206-2016, SEC.3; P.L.160-2020, SEC.8; P.L.38-2021, SEC.82; P.L.104-2022, SEC.154; P.L.70-2022, SEC.5; P.L.105-2022, SEC.38; P.L.103-2025, SEC.1; P.L.211-2025, SEC.1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases, 2000–2017 · leading case: Mun. City of South Bend v. Kimsey, 781 N.E.2d 683 (Ind. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mun. City of South Bend v. Kimsey, 781 N.E.2d 683 (Ind. 2003). · cites it 4× “Section 1 included a minor revision to Indiana Code section 36-4-3-4, and Section 2 amended section 36-4-3-9.”

City of Carmel v. Steele, 865 N.E.2d 612 (Ind. 2007). · cites it 2× “§ 36-4r-3-3 (“section 3”); a municipality may annex contiguous territory (and sometimes non-contiguous territory) by describing particular property to be added, I.C. § 36-4-3-4 (“section 4”); a municipality may annex contiguous territory by accepting a petition submitted by less…”

Romine v. Gagle, 782 N.E.2d 369 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “Upon examining the provisions of the Drainage Obstruction Act, we find no indication in the Act that it is intended to provide the only recourse for parties pursuing claims of this nature.”

Bradley v. City of New Castle, 764 N.E.2d 212 (Ind. 2002). · cites it 2× “Remonstrators concede that Ind.Code § 36-4-3-4 provided an alternative basis for annexation and does not require this description.”

In re the Annexation Proposed by Ordinance No. X-01-95, 774 N.E.2d 58 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 8× “See I.C. § 36-4-3-4(f) (now codified at I.C. § 36-4-3-4(g)); I.”

City of Greenwood v. TOWN OF BARGERSVILLE, 930 N.E.2d 58 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “Ind.Code § 36-4-3-4. The municipality's legislative body must first introduce a proposed annexation ordinance and then hold a public hearing on the proposed annexation before it may adopt an ordinance to annex the territory.”

Bradley v. City of New Castle, 730 N.E.2d 771 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “On appeal, this court affirmed the trial court and although this requirement (to assign the annexed territory to a councilmanic district per Ind.Code § 36-4-3-4(f)), 12 falls outside Section 13, we affirmed this additional limitation on a municipalities’ annexation power.”

Town of Dyer v. Town of St. John, 919 N.E.2d 1196 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “There cannot be unannexed areas completely separating annexed areas, unless a municipality has annexed non-contiguous land that is expressly permitted by Indiana Code Section 36-4-3-4. It is true that a single, unified annexation area also may include variations in topography,…”

Town of Cedar Lake, Indiana v. Certain Cedar Lake 2014 Annexation Territory Landowners, 85 N.E.3d 643 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “The Fiscal Plan granted the “agricultural exemption” for properties zoned as agricultural land under Ind. Code § 36-4-3-4 .1, which would' exempt such properties from the additional municipal taxes until such time as the properties were rezoned.”

City of Carmel v. Steele, 836 N.E.2d 967 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “Generally, the annexation process formally begins when a municipality adopts an ordinance annexing territory pursuant to either Indiana Code section 36-4-3-8 or Indiana Code section 36-4-3-4. Id. However, as was done here, the annexation process can begin when an individual…”

Town of Zionsville, Indiana v. Town of Whitestown, Indiana & Angel Badillo, 33 N.E.3d 1144 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “, I.C. § 36-4-3-4(a)(l). The Act leaves those statutes undisturbed.”

In the Matter of Ordinance 2013-09, as amended, the South & West Area Annexation Ordinance v. The City of Logansport, Indiana, acting by & through Ted Franklin (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “The Annexation Ordinance as amended exempts property which is classified for zoning purposes as agricultural from the municipal tax rate for so long as the property remains zoned agricultural pursuant to Ind. Code § 36-4-3-4 .1 (the “ag exemption”).”

Show all 13 citing cases →

— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-4(a)(l) — 1 case

Town of Zionsville, Indiana v. Town of Whitestown, Indiana & Angel Badillo, 33 N.E.3d 1144 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “, I.C. § 36-4-3-4(a)(l). The Act leaves those statutes undisturbed.”

— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-4(f) — 3 cases

Romine v. Gagle, 782 N.E.2d 369 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “Upon examining the provisions of the Drainage Obstruction Act, we find no indication in the Act that it is intended to provide the only recourse for parties pursuing claims of this nature.”

In re the Annexation Proposed by Ordinance No. X-01-95, 774 N.E.2d 58 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “See I.C. § 36-4-3-4(f) (now codified at I.C. § 36-4-3-4(g)); I.”

Bradley v. City of New Castle, 730 N.E.2d 771 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “On appeal, this court affirmed the trial court and although this requirement (to assign the annexed territory to a councilmanic district per Ind.Code § 36-4-3-4(f)), 12 falls outside Section 13, we affirmed this additional limitation on a municipalities’ annexation power.”

— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-4(g) — 2 cases

In re the Annexation Proposed by Ordinance No. X-01-95, 774 N.E.2d 58 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “See I.C. § 36-4-3-4(f) (now codified at I.C. § 36-4-3-4(g)); I.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.