What is the Map Act and How Does it Apply to Wake County Residents?

Two Map Act disputes are making headlines in Wake County as the North Carolina Court of Appeals has ordered a trial judge to revisit damages the state Department of Transportation (DOT) was ordered to pay. The issue at hand could result in less money for the plaintiffs in the case than the trial judge had ordered. The court rejected the DOT’s arguments about whether property taken under the Map Act should be temporary or indefinite. 

With decades of experience handling municipal law and condemnation cases, the attorneys at Van Camp, Meacham & Newman are well-equipped to protect your rights and interests in the face of eminent domain challenges to your property.

What is the Map Act?

The Map Act was approved in 1987 and had allowed the DOT to file official corridor maps for future highway projects. Under the Map Act, the DOT could block any development of property covered by the maps. The idea behind the Map Act was to limit development in those areas while the state completed preliminary studies that would reduce the money they state would have to pay to purchase land for road construction. While those studies were being done, property owners could not develop their land, add buildings, or do much else with their property. This lead to the reduced property value of many properties. Many property owners became frustrated with the process that limited their property rights.

In 2016, the Map Act was repealed after state Supreme Court justices ruled that it had led to the property rights of owners within the highway corridors being taken unconstitutionally. Plaintiffs argued that the DOT should have been forced to pay for the full unrestricted property value taken for highway projects once the Map Act restrictions were no longer valid.

Map Act Rulings

In Mata v. NC Department of Transportation and Wonder Day Partnership v. NC Department of Transportation, Superior Court Judge Bryan Collins sided against the DOT when it came to payments the department owed property owners.

The two cases involve properties in Wake County that were targeted in a 1996 corridor map for Interstate 540. The DOT appealed those rulings. 

1996 Roadway Corridor Official Map.pdf

The payment amount depends on whether the Map Act’s property use restrictions should be considered “temporary” or ‘indefinite”. The difference between the two could amount to major differences in how much money the state must pay to acquire targeted properties. Pertaining to the two Wake County cases, the Map Act blocked any development of affected property for 20 years. 

In May, both of the Wake County cases led to an hour of oral arguments at the state’s second-highest court. Plaintiffs argued that the DOT wanted a Map Act discount. This discount would reduce the amount of money the DOT pays when it takes property that was once part of the Map Act. The DOT responded to the plaintiff’s arguments, stating that the plaintiffs would force taxpayers to pay large amounts of money, much higher than any awards offered in many other Map Act cases that were settled since the Map Act was repealed in 2016.

Lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the case had argued that the DOT was trying to get a condemnation discount for money that they haven’t paid. Meanwhile, lawyers representing the DOT argued that the two Wake County cases were already settled by the state Supreme Court regarding how property owners should be compensated. The plaintiffs were accused of trying to stray from the Map Act law in hopes of getting larger payments.

What’s Next?

According to The Carolina Journal, lawyers representing the DOT in the Appeals Court petition have written that if the trial court’s ruling that the rescission of the corridor maps converted the taking of property from indefinite to temporary, it would have a significant impact on all future litigation under the Map Act.

Lawyers reference the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Chappell v.  N.C. Dept. of Transportation, which stated that a Map Act taking falls under the category of “indefinite” duration. The decision in this case followed up on the Supreme Court’s initial ruling against the Map Act in the 2016 case Kirby v. NC DOT.

How the court rules on the duration of the Map Act will also impact direct condemnation actions involving the same properties on which the Department effected Map Act takings. If the Map Act is ruled to be temporary, rather than indefinite, the affected property owners could collect two large payments from the DOT on the same piece of land. One payment would address the impact of the Map Act while the other would address the actual taking of the land for the highway construction project.

All eyes will be on how the court rules. The ruling will impact how much the DOT will have to pay property owners, and whether those property owners will see two large payments for their land.

Are You Seeking Representation in a Legal Case?

If you need legal representation in a case against you, call the skilled and experienced lawyers at Van Camp, Meacham & Newman today. We proudly serve individuals, families, and business clients in the Pinehurst, Raleigh, and Southern Pines areas, throughout North Carolina, and across the country.

Schedule a free 30-minute consultation to discuss your case and your rights. Call us today at  910-295-2525 or fill out the form below.