Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Downzoning Legislation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
New state law narrows Asheville's authority to downzone; city asks legislature for reconsideration
Summary
City Attorney and staff briefed council on Session Law 2024-57 (formerly SB 382), explaining that the law broadens the definition of downzoning, restricts local governments from downzoning without owner consent, and could hamper future UDO updates and adoption of new flood maps; staff said they will press the legislature for changes.
City Attorney Brad Branham told the Asheville City Council Jan. 23 that a late-2024 law (originally Senate Bill 382, now cited as Session Law 2024-57) substantially limits local governments' ability to downzone property and broadens the statutory definition of downzoning to include "creation of nonconformities" in nonresidential zoning districts.
Branham said the law removes the longstanding local-government exception to a statutory restriction on third-party downzoning and now prohibits local governments from downzoning without an owner's consent. "This recent legislation has drastically changed the way that local governments are able to do what's called downzoning," Branham said, noting that the change could affect zoning map updates, text amendments (for example, parking or setback rules), and the adoption of updated flood maps or comprehensive UDO revisions.
Why this matters: Staff explained that common local actions — rewriting the UDO, updating development standards (buffers, parking, tree preservation) or adopting new flood maps issued by FEMA/state — may now be considered downzoning if they reduce development capacity, eliminate allowed uses or create legal nonconformities in nonresidential zones. Because the new law requires owner consent for downzoning, city-initiated, broad-based zoning and standards changes could be effectively blocked or forced to a case-by-case consent model.
Brad Branham said some questions remain and legal analysis statewide is ongoing, but he expressed concern that the law could impede compliance with federal and state requirements (for example, updated flood maps necessary for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program). He noted a 180‑day retroactive look-back but said the city's internal review did not find actions taken during that period that would be reversed.
The city attorney and staff urged a dual approach: (1) exercise caution in city-initiated zoning changes until the legislature clarifies or amends the law; and (2) pursue legislative remedies in the upcoming long session to limit unintended consequences. Brad said the council's proposed legislative agenda, to be adopted Jan. 28, includes requests for state help covering the 10% local match for FEMA public-assistance projects, revenue replacement funding, ongoing recovery support and reconsideration of the downzoning provisions.
Council members discussed coalition building across affected Western North Carolina jurisdictions and the role of the League of Municipalities and metro-mayors in seeking legislative fixes. Brad said municipal attorneys and associations are coalescing options and will press for either clarifying changes or a narrower, more targeted remedy when the General Assembly reconvenes.
