Home | North Carolina Eminent Domain

North Carolina's Eminent Domain Laws and Property Rights

Meet OCA's North Carolina Attorney

Jeremy Hopkins

Jeremy Hopkins

Jeremy Hopkins has been fighting for property owners since 2002. He has represented property owners in direct and inverse condemnation cases, as well as matters involving constitutional property rights. He has defended property owners at the trial and appellate levels in state and federal court against an array of condemning authorities, including the state and federal government, city and county governments, pipeline and power companies, railroad corporations, airport authorities, departments of transportation, and other public and private entities that wield the power of eminent domain. Mr. Hopkins has obtained some of the largest annual jury verdicts and settlements in his state, and he has successfully defended property owners against unlawful takings.

LEARN MORE

North Carolina

Raleigh, NC 27607
Tel: (919) 863-8819 | Fax: (919) 863-3528
jhopkins@cshlaw.com

In addition to defending owners in the courtroom, Mr. Hopkins has worked to further the legislative and constitutional protections for property owners. He has taught and trained other lawyers, has written extensively in the field, appeared on local and national television and radio, testified in legislative committees, and helped obtain significant legislative and constitutional reform. Several courts and other authors have cited his work, including the Kansas Supreme Court, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States District Court in the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Hopkins has a passion for defending the constitutional rights of property owners. He firmly believes owners should be secure in their private property and that those who are forced to surrender a portion of their property are entitled to the full measure of justice, not just a portion of it. He has fought tirelessly for the rights of property owners and will continue to do so.

Publications

  • Just Compensation and Fair Market Value, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, January 2025
  • The Basics of a Condemnation Case, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, January 2025
  • The Jury’s View, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, January 2025
  • Summary Primer on Preserving the Record, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, February 2023
  • Avoiding Ridiculous Court Rulings and Outcomes, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, January 2022
  • Keep Your Head on a Swivel, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, January 2022
  • Hurdles to Just Compensation, 10 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Journal 177 (2021)
  • Inverse Condemnation: Standards and Burdens of Proof, Practical Real Estate Lawyer, July 2021
  • The First Question in Determining Just Compensation: What Property Should Be Valued?, Practical Real Estate Lawyer, May 2021
  • Inverse Condemnation: What It Is and How to Raise It, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, January 2021
  • The Big Four: Parent Tract, Highest and Best Use, Scope of the Project and Threat of Condemnation, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, January 2020
  • Project Damages, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, January 2019
  • Market Value: Fair or Fictional? American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, January 2019
  • Yes, Virginia, the Constitution Applies in Family Court, Too, Common Constitutional Issues in Family Law, The Nebraska Lawyer July/Aug. 2018
  • Due Process, Equal Protection, and the Uniform Relocation Act: Regulation and Enforcement Must Comply with the Constitution, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, January 2018
  • Winning the Common Valuation Evidentiary Issues, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, January 2017
  • Effective Case Planning and Theme Development, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, January 2017
  • State and Federal Eminent Domain Law, CLE International, May 2016
  • An Analysis of the Judicial Grant of the Quick Take Power, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, February 2015
  • Amending the Certificate, CLE International, May 2015
  • Holding Back the Tide of Eminent Domain, Property Rights Foundation of America, Nineteenth Annual National Conference on Property Rights, Latham, New York (October 17, 2015)
  • Obtaining Eminent Domain Reform: A View Through the Lens of Virginia’s Constitutional Amendment, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, January 2014
  • Practical Issues in Freedom of Information and Open Access Litigation, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, January 2014
  • Virginia Eminent Domain: Frequently Asked Questions, Pipeline Trust, April 2014
  • Design Build, Due Process, and Descriptions, CLE International, May 2014
  • Utility Corridors, CLE International, April 2013
  • Initial Discovery in Eminent Domain Proceedings: Having a Plan and a Purpose, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, January 2013
  • The Keystone Pipeline, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, January 2013
  • Fifty State Survey: The Law of Eminent Domain, Virginia, ABA Section of Litigation, June 15, 2012 (Virginia Chapter)
  • The Property Rights Constitutional Amendment of 2012, Vol. XXXIII, No. 1, The Fee Simple: The Newsletter of the Virginia State Bar Real Property Section, Spring 2012 ed.
  • Debunking Property Rights Amendment Fears, Washington Times, January 20, 2012
  • Doctrines of Undercompensation: “Just Compensation” v. just “Compensation,” CLE International, April 2011
  • Rethinking Concepts “Chiseled in Stone,” American Law Institute-American Bar Association, February 2011
  • Al-Qaida, the Klan, and Property Activists?, Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star, January 20, 2011
  • Basics of Section 1983 Claims, CLE International, April 2010
  • Permanent Protections Would Be Best, Richmond Times-Dispatch, April 3, 2007
  • The Constitution and the Eminent Domain Attorney, CLE International, April 2007
  • Reform Eminent Domain, Washington Times, January 15, 2007
  • Not Mr. Jefferson’s Virginia, Virginia Institute for Public Policy, January 2007
  • The Real Story of Eminent Domain in Virginia: The Rise, Fall, and Undetermined Future of Property Rights in the Commonwealth, Virginia Institute for Public Policy, December 2006
  • Special Interests vs. Virginia Taxpayers, Washington Times, March 23, 2006
  • Just Compensation: Elementary Principles and Considerations to Ensure the Property Owner Is Made Whole, American Law Institute-American Bar Association, January 2006
  • Cited by Kansas Supreme Court in City of Mission Hills v. Sexton, 284 Kan. 414, 426, 160 P.3d 812, 823 (Kan. 2007)
  • Virginia’s Response to Kelo: Constitutional Amendment or Legislation?, Virginia Institute for Public Policy, September 2005
  • Separation of Powers: A Forgotten Protection in the Context of Eminent Domain, Regent University Law Review, 16 Regent U. L. Rev. 371, 2003/2004
  • Cited by United States District Court in Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC v. 9.32 Acres, 544 F. Supp. 2d 939, 948 (D. Ariz. 2008)
  • The Claim of Severance Damages in Easement Takings, American Bar Association-American Law Institute, January 2004
  • Cited by United States Court of Claims in Loveridge v. United States, 167 Fed. Cl. 44, 54 (2023)
  • Compensable Nuggets of Just Compensation, American Bar Association-American Law Institute, January 2003

Admissions, Certifications, and Other Legal Organizations

  • North Carolina (2017)
  • Virginia (2002)
  • District of Columbia (2003)
  • Tennessee (2010)
  • Co-Planning Chair, ALI-CLE’s National Conference on Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation – Condemnation 101
  • Advisory Board Member, Brigham Kanner Property Rights Conference at the College of William & Mary School of Law

Sampling of Results & Case Decisions

A sampling of some of the results Mr. Hopkins has obtained are below.

  • Obtained a jury verdict of $5,084,000 for a property owner who was offered $244,825
  • Obtained $6,900,000 for a property owner who was offered $57,550 (after a successful weeklong trial on liability)
  • Obtained $2,950,000 for a property owner who was offered $288,500
  • Obtained $495,600 for a property owner who was offered $2,800
  • Obtained a jury verdict of $3,133,130 for a property owner who was offered $653,771
  • Obtained $19,100,000 for a property owner who was offered $263,520 (after a successful liability hearing)
  • Obtained $3,250,000 for a property owner who was offered $819,850
  • Obtained $1,350,000 for a property owner who was offered $159,050
  • Obtained $2,252,000 for a property owner who was offered $372,350
  • Obtained $4,204,625 for a property owner who was offered $595,375

In addition to defending owners in the courtroom, Mr. Hopkins has worked to further the legislative and constitutional protections for property owners. He has taught and trained other lawyers, has written extensively in the field, appeared on local and national television and radio, testified in legislative committees, and helped obtain significant legislative and constitutional reform. Several courts and other authors have cited his work, including the Kansas Supreme Court, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States District Court in the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Hopkins has a passion for defending the constitutional rights of property owners. He firmly believes owners should be secure in their private property and that those who are forced to surrender a portion of their property are entitled to the full measure of justice, not just a portion of it. He has fought tirelessly for the rights of property owners and will continue to do so.

Publications

  • Just Compensation and Fair Market Value, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, January 2025
  • The Basics of a Condemnation Case, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, January 2025
  • The Jury’s View, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, January 2025
  • Summary Primer on Preserving the Record, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, February 2023
  • Avoiding Ridiculous Court Rulings and Outcomes, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, January 2022
  • Keep Your Head on a Swivel, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, January 2022
  • Hurdles to Just Compensation, 10 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Journal 177 (2021)
  • Inverse Condemnation: Standards and Burdens of Proof, Practical Real Estate Lawyer, July 2021
  • The First Question in Determining Just Compensation: What Property Should Be Valued?, Practical Real Estate Lawyer, May 2021
  • Inverse Condemnation: What It Is and How to Raise It, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, January 2021
  • The Big Four: Parent Tract, Highest and Best Use, Scope of the Project and Threat of Condemnation, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, January 2020
  • Project Damages, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, January 2019
  • Market Value: Fair or Fictional? American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, January 2019
  • Yes, Virginia, the Constitution Applies in Family Court, Too, Common Constitutional Issues in Family Law, The Nebraska Lawyer July/Aug. 2018
  • Due Process, Equal Protection, and the Uniform Relocation Act: Regulation and Enforcement Must Comply with the Constitution, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, January 2018
  • Winning the Common Valuation Evidentiary Issues, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, January 2017
  • Effective Case Planning and Theme Development, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, January 2017
  • State and Federal Eminent Domain Law, CLE International, May 2016
  • An Analysis of the Judicial Grant of the Quick Take Power, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, February 2015
  • Amending the Certificate, CLE International, May 2015
  • Holding Back the Tide of Eminent Domain, Property Rights Foundation of America, Nineteenth Annual National Conference on Property Rights, Latham, New York (October 17, 2015)
  • Obtaining Eminent Domain Reform: A View Through the Lens of Virginia’s Constitutional Amendment, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, January 2014
  • Practical Issues in Freedom of Information and Open Access Litigation, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, January 2014
  • Virginia Eminent Domain: Frequently Asked Questions, Pipeline Trust, April 2014
  • Design Build, Due Process, and Descriptions, CLE International, May 2014
  • Utility Corridors, CLE International, April 2013
  • Initial Discovery in Eminent Domain Proceedings: Having a Plan and a Purpose, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, January 2013
  • The Keystone Pipeline, American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education, January 2013
  • Fifty State Survey: The Law of Eminent Domain, Virginia, ABA Section of Litigation, June 15, 2012 (Virginia Chapter)
  • The Property Rights Constitutional Amendment of 2012, Vol. XXXIII, No. 1, The Fee Simple: The Newsletter of the Virginia State Bar Real Property Section, Spring 2012 ed.
  • Debunking Property Rights Amendment Fears, Washington Times, January 20, 2012
  • Doctrines of Undercompensation: “Just Compensation” v. just “Compensation,” CLE International, April 2011
  • Rethinking Concepts “Chiseled in Stone,” American Law Institute-American Bar Association, February 2011
  • Al-Qaida, the Klan, and Property Activists?, Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star, January 20, 2011
  • Basics of Section 1983 Claims, CLE International, April 2010
  • Permanent Protections Would Be Best, Richmond Times-Dispatch, April 3, 2007
  • The Constitution and the Eminent Domain Attorney, CLE International, April 2007
  • Reform Eminent Domain, Washington Times, January 15, 2007
  • Not Mr. Jefferson’s Virginia, Virginia Institute for Public Policy, January 2007
  • The Real Story of Eminent Domain in Virginia: The Rise, Fall, and Undetermined Future of Property Rights in the Commonwealth, Virginia Institute for Public Policy, December 2006
  • Special Interests vs. Virginia Taxpayers, Washington Times, March 23, 2006
  • Just Compensation: Elementary Principles and Considerations to Ensure the Property Owner Is Made Whole, American Law Institute-American Bar Association, January 2006
  • Cited by Kansas Supreme Court in City of Mission Hills v. Sexton, 284 Kan. 414, 426, 160 P.3d 812, 823 (Kan. 2007)
  • Virginia’s Response to Kelo: Constitutional Amendment or Legislation?, Virginia Institute for Public Policy, September 2005
  • Separation of Powers: A Forgotten Protection in the Context of Eminent Domain, Regent University Law Review, 16 Regent U. L. Rev. 371, 2003/2004
  • Cited by United States District Court in Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC v. 9.32 Acres, 544 F. Supp. 2d 939, 948 (D. Ariz. 2008)
  • The Claim of Severance Damages in Easement Takings, American Bar Association-American Law Institute, January 2004
  • Cited by United States Court of Claims in Loveridge v. United States, 167 Fed. Cl. 44, 54 (2023)
  • Compensable Nuggets of Just Compensation, American Bar Association-American Law Institute, January 2003

PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

While North Carolina remains the only state in the nation without a just compensation clause in its Constitution, the courts have required just compensation under the Law of the Land Clause found in Sec. 19 of the North Carolina Constitution.This clause reads:

No person shall be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the law of the land.  No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be subjected to discrimination by the State because of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Likewise, North Carolina lacks many of the pre-condemnation protections provided to owners in other states. For instance, North Carolina law fails to provide reimbursement for litigation expenses, even when the owner demonstrates that the condemnor’s estimate of just compensation was grossly inadequate.

Nevertheless, despite these shortcomings, for those landowners willing to stand and defend their property rights and entitlement to just compensation, North Carolina law guarantees them not only the value of the property taken from them, but also compensation for the damages inflicted upon the property that remains after the taking.

SUMMARY OF NORTH CAROLINA’S EMINENT DOMAIN LAWS

The following responses are intended to provide general information about eminent domain laws in the featured state. Such information does not constitute legal advice. Anyone interested in learning more about eminent domain law and the impact it may have on a given set of facts should consult with an OCA attorney or another attorney experienced in handling eminent domain cases.

  • Who Can Exercise Eminent Domain Laws?

    North Carolina law permits state and local governments, and their instrumentalities, as well as certain private condemnors, such as public utility and railroad companies, to take private property by eminent domain. North Carolina General Statute §40A-3 lists the various entities that can take property and the specific uses for which each entity can exercise the power of eminent domain. Additionally, Chapter 136 of the North Carolina General Statutes authorizes the North Carolina Department of Transportation to take property, whereas Chapter 146 authorizes the Department of Administration to take property on behalf of the State.

  • What Are the Legal Requirements for Exercising the Power?

    Under North Carolina law, property can be condemned only for a public use. An entity seeking to take property must demonstrate that the General Assembly has granted it the power of eminent domain and has authorized that entity to take property for the specific purpose for which it seeks to condemn an owner’s property. See North Carolina General Statute § 40A-3.

    The procedural requirements vary greatly depending on whether the entity seeking to take property is a private condemnor, local public condemnor, or other public condemnor. These procures are specified in Chapters 40A and 136 of the North Carolina General Statutes.

  • What Limitations or Defenses Exist?

    Once a condemnor establishes that the General Assembly has (1) delegated the power of eminent domain to it and (2) authorized that entity to take property for a use authorized in the North Carolina General Statutes, the defenses to the taking are limited. At that point, the owner is typically limited to constitutional defenses beyond any defense against the condemnor’s authorization to take the property.

  • What Constitutes a Public Purpose?

    Any use specified in North Carolina General Statute § 40A-3 constitutes a valid public use for purposes of exercising the power of eminent domain. Additionally, the North Carolina Department of Transportation can take property for those uses specified in Chapter 136, and the Department of Administration can likewise take property for the uses specified in Chapter 146.

  • How is Just Compensation Determined?

    When the North Carolina Department of Transportation or Department of Administration take property, just compensation is determined by the difference between the value of the entire property before the taking and the value of the property remaining after the taking.

    When other entities take property, just compensation is determined by the greater of the following two amounts: (1) the value of the property taken or (2) the difference between the value of the entire property before the taking and the value of the property remaining after the taking.

  • How Is Fair Market Value Defined?

    At its core, fair market value is defined by the price that would be negotiated between a willing buyer and willing seller if each were acting knowledgeably and voluntarily. Courts seek to replicate the market when determining just compensation in a forced condemnation sale. In order to ensure owners are made whole when forced to sell their property, fair market value is determined based on the highest and best use of the property in condemnation cases.

    While there are a variety of ways to measure fair market value, appraisers most often use the three standard approaches to value: sales, income, and cost approaches.

  • What About Recovering Damages to Remaining Property?

    Owners are constitutionally entitled to damages to any property remaining after the taking. As just compensation is determined based on the difference between the value of the entire property before the taking and the value of the property remaining after the taking, damages are a vital part of determining what the owner is constitutionally due. Any analysis of just compensation in a partial taking case must include consideration of the damages, i.e., the depreciation in the value of the property remaining after the taking.

  • Is the Landowner Entitled to Recover Reasonable Attorney Fees? Expert Fees? Litigation Costs?

    Unlike the law in many other states, attorney’s fees, expert witness fees, and other litigation expenses and costs are generally not recoverable under North Carolina law. There are three exceptions to this general rule. First, owners are entitled to reimbursement if they are forced to file the lawsuit to recover just compensation (i.e., inverse condemnation). Second, if the court determines a condemnor does not have authority to take the owner’s property, the owner is entitled to reimbursement. Third, if a condemnor abandons the taking, which is permitted only in certain circumstances, the owner is entitled to reimbursement. North Carolina General Statutes §§ 40A-8 and 136-119 address these exceptions.

close
CONTACT US 877-367-6963
email telephone877-367-6963