Zoning – South Carolina’s Annexation Ordinance – Parcel ‘Adjacent’ to City Limits

Both the National Trust and the City of Charleston had standing to challenge North Charleston’s annexation ordinance and that the annexation was invalid because the parcel was not physically contiguous, and therefore not “adjacent,” to North Charleston’s city limits.

We reversed in part and affirmed in part.

We reviewed a challenge to the City of North Charleston’s attempted annexation of a one-acre parcel of land near Highway 61 and the Ashley River. The National Trust for Historic Preservation and the City of Charleston sought to invalidate North Charleston’s annexation ordinance, arguing the property was not “adjacent” to North Charleston’s existing city limits as required by section 5-3-100 of the South Carolina Code.

The dispute centered on the geographic relationship among several parcels. Since 1980, the National Trust has owned a narrow, 100-foot-wide strip of land running along the southwest side of Highway 61, which Charleston annexed in 2005. In 2017, North Charleston annexed a separate parcel on the northeast side of Highway 61, known as the Runnymede parcel, extending to the Ashley River and connecting to other North Charleston property. Later that year, North Charleston enacted Ordinance No. 2017-080 to annex a one-acre parcel located southwest of Highway 61 and separated from North Charleston’s city limits by the National Trust’s narrow strip, which lies within Charleston’s boundaries.

In describing the annexation parcel, North Charleston’s ordinance included 62 square feet of land belonging to the National Trust and within Charleston’s city limits. The National Trust and Charleston filed suit, arguing the annexation was invalid because the parcel did not touch North Charleston’s city limits and was separated by land owned by another entity and another municipality. North Charleston moved to dismiss for lack of standing and sought summary judgment on the validity of the annexation.

The circuit court dismissed the case for lack of standing but ruled in the alternative that the annexation was invalid because the parcel was not “adjacent” to North Charleston’s city limits. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal on standing grounds and declined to address the annexation’s legality.

We reversed the Court of Appeals on standing. It held the City of Charleston had standing because North Charleston’s annexation would require running its city limits through Charleston’s municipal boundaries, constituting a sufficient infringement of Charleston’s interests. We further held the National Trust had standing because the ordinance attempted to annex land owned by the Trust without its consent, contrary to section 5-3-100’s requirement that the territory belong entirely to the annexing municipality. We rejected North Charleston’s argument that inclusion of Trust-owned land was a drafting mistake, holding that annexations are governed by the ordinance’s language, not municipal intent.

Turning to the merits, we affirmed the circuit court’s alternative ruling. Interpreting section 5-3-100 in the context of South Carolina’s annexation statutes, we held “adjacent” requires physical contiguity. Because the National Trust’s narrow strip separated the annexation parcel from North Charleston’s existing city limits, the parcel was not adjacent, and the annexation was invalid.

Reversed in part; affirmed in part.

National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States v. City of North Charleston (Lawyers Weekly No. 010-004-26, 6 pp.) (John C. Few, J.) Appealed from Charleston County Circuit Court (Eugene C. Griffith, Jr., J.) George Trenholm Walker, of Walker Gressette Freeman & Linton, LLC, of Charleston, for National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States; Frances Isaac Cantwell, of City of Charleston Legal Department; Julia Parker Copeland, formerly of City of Charleston Legal Department; Wilbur E. Johnson and Russell Grainger Hines, of Clement Rivers, LLP, all of Charleston, all for City of Charleston. David J. Parrish, of Maynard Nexsen PC; Kriston D. Neely, both of Charleston, both for City of North Charleston. South Carolina Supreme Court