NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 168-23 (2026)

Certain private agreements void

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 168 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any restriction, reservation, condition, exception, or covenant in any subdivision plan, deed, or other instrument of or pertaining to the transfer, sale, lease, or use of property which would permit residential use of property but prohibit the use of the property as a family care home as defined in G.S. 160D-907 is void as against public policy to the extent of the prohibition and shall be given no legal or equitable force or effect. (1981, c. 565, s. 1; 2019-111, s. 2.6(j); 2020-3, s. 4.33(a); 2020-25, ss. 49(a), (c), 51(a), (b), (d).)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1985–2006 · leading case: Hedingham Cmty. Ass'n v. GLH Builders, Inc., 634 S.E.2d 224 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006).
Hedingham Cmty. Ass'n v. GLH Builders, Inc., 634 S.E.2d 224 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 8× “§ 168-21 and that consequently, the restrictions asserted by Plaintiff to limit or prohibit such use of the home are “void as against public policy” under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 168-23 . We thus affirm the orders of Judge Croom and Judge Desvousges.”
Westwood Homeowners Ass'n v. Tenhoff, 745 P.2d 976 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “1983); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 168-23 (1982); Wis. Stat.”
Smith v. Ass'n for Retarded Citizens for Hous. Dev. Servs., Inc., 331 S.E.2d 324 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “Our decision makes it unnecessary for us to address either plaintiffs’ assignments of error relating to the applicability of G.S. §§ 168-23 and -24 to “structural” limitations imposed by restrictive covenants or the constitutionality of the statute as applied to “structural”…”
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.