NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-15 (2026)

Consent of board of commissioners necessary in certain counties before land may be condemned or acquired by a unit of local government outside the county

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 153A CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 40A of the General Statutes or any other general law or local act conferring the power of eminent domain, before final judgment may be entered in any action of condemnation initiated by a county, city or town, special district, or other unit of local government which is located wholly or primarily outside another county, whereby the condemnor seeks to acquire property located in the other county, the condemnor shall furnish proof that the county board of commissioners of the county where the land is located has consented to the taking.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of G.S. 153A-158, 160A-240.1, 130A-55, or any other general law or local act conferring the power to acquire real property, before any county, city or town, special district, or other unit of local government which is located wholly or primarily outside another county acquires any real property located in the other county by exchange, purchase or lease, it must have the approval of the county board of commissioners of the county where the land is located.

(c) This section applies to Alamance, Alleghany, Anson, Ashe, Bertie, Bladen, Brunswick, Burke, Buncombe, Cabarrus, Caldwell, Camden, Carteret, Caswell, Catawba, Chatham, Cherokee, Clay, Cleveland, Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Currituck, Dare, Davidson, Davie, Duplin, Durham, Edgecombe, Forsyth, Franklin, Gaston, Gates, Graham, Granville, Greene, Guilford, Halifax, Harnett, Haywood, Henderson, Hoke, Hyde, Iredell, Jackson, Johnston, Jones, Lee, Lenoir, Lincoln, Macon, Madison, Martin, McDowell, Mecklenburg, Montgomery, Nash, New Hanover, Northampton, Onslow, Orange, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Pender, Perquimans, Person, Pitt, Polk, Richmond, Robeson, Rockingham, Rowan, Rutherford, Sampson, Scotland, Stanly, Stokes, Surry, Swain, Transylvania, Union, Vance, Wake, Warren, Watauga, Wayne, Wilkes, and Yancey Counties only.

(d) This section does not apply as to any condemnation or acquisition of real property or an interest in real property by a city where the property to be condemned or acquired is within the corporate limits of that city. (1981, c. 134, ss. 1, 2; c. 270, ss. 1, 2; c. 283, ss. 1-3; c. 459, s. 1; c. 941, s. 1; 1981 (Reg. Sess., 1982), c. 1150, s. 1; 1989 (Reg. Sess., 1990), c. 973, s. 1; c. 1061, s. 1; 1991, c. 615, s. 3; 1991 (Reg. Sess., 1992), c. 790, s. 1; 1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994), c. 624, s. 1; c. 628, s. 1; 1995 (Reg. Sess., 1996), c. 681, s. 1; 1997-164, s. 1; 1997-263, s. 1; 1998-110, s. 1; 1998-217, s. 47; 1999-6, s. 1; 2005-33, s. 1; 2013-174, s. 1; 2015-253, s. 13.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2000–2011 · leading case: Town of Midland v. Morris, 704 S.E.2d 329 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Town of Midland v. Morris, 704 S.E.2d 329 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 37× “Violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-15 Property Owners further argue that the condemnations either violate, or are a sham to avoid, N.”

Cnty. of Johnston v. City of Wilson, 525 S.E.2d 826 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 9× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-15 (Cum. Supp. 1998).”

Caswell Cnty. v. Town of Yanceyville, 611 S.E.2d 451 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 16× “Plaintiff subsequently filed a declaratory judgment action requesting the trial court determine the applicability of N.C. Gen.Stat. § 153A-15 to the condemnation action.”

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-15(b) — 1 case

Caswell Cnty. v. Town of Yanceyville, 611 S.E.2d 451 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005). “Plaintiff subsequently filed a declaratory judgment action requesting the trial court determine the applicability of N.C. Gen.Stat. § 153A-15 to the condemnation action.”

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.