## Facts

- North Carolina statutes authorized municipalities to create historic districts and require certificates of appropriateness for exterior alterations, demolition, and construction within such districts.
- The statutes required that a majority of historic district commission members have special interest, experience, or education in history or architecture, and authorized regulation to prevent exterior changes incongruous with a district’s historic aspects.
- The City of Raleigh adopted ordinances establishing the Oakwood Historic District as an overlay district and creating the Raleigh Historic District Commission (RHDC).
- The ordinances included design standards and guidelines governing exterior alterations, demolitions, and new construction within the district.
- A-S-P Associates owned property within Oakwood, including a vacant lot, and sought declaratory relief invalidating the ordinances and enabling legislation.
- Associates argued that the scheme was unconstitutional aesthetic regulation, an improper delegation of legislative power, and inconsistent with statutory zoning requirements (including comprehensive-plan compliance and prohibitions on unlawful spot zoning and improper overlapping districts).
- The superior court entered summary judgment for the City on all claims; the Court of Appeals reversed; the Supreme Court allowed the City’s appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether historic-district regulation of exterior appearance is a valid exercise of the police power or an unconstitutional deprivation of property without due process as primarily aesthetic regulation.
2. Whether historic-district controls may constitutionally apply to new construction on vacant lots within the district.
3. Whether authorizing denial of certificates for work “incongruous with the historic aspects” of the district is an impermissible delegation of legislative power due to inadequate standards.
4. Whether the overlay historic district violated statutory zoning requirements, including comprehensive-plan requirements, prohibitions on unlawful spot zoning, or limits on overlapping zoning.
5. Whether summary judgment for the nonmoving party was proper where the plaintiff moved for summary judgment and the record presented only questions of law.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated summary judgment for the City.
- The Court held that creating the Oakwood Historic District and regulating exterior features to preserve historic aspects was a valid exercise of the police power.
- The Court held the ordinance was valid as applied to new construction within the historic district.
- The Court held the “incongruity with the historic aspects” standard, as implemented through the district’s identifiable character and adopted guidelines, did not constitute an impermissible delegation of legislative power.
- The Court rejected the statutory zoning challenges, concluding the overlay district complied with comprehensive-plan requirements and did not constitute unlawful spot zoning or invalid overlapping zoning.
- The Court held summary judgment for the City was proper because there were no genuine disputes of material fact and the challenges presented questions of law.

## Legal Principles

- Historic preservation of a district’s exterior character may serve the general welfare and support regulation under the municipal police power.
- Aesthetic impacts may be regulated when tied to a legitimate public-welfare objective such as preserving historically significant areas and structures.
- Historic-district regulation may extend to new construction because preserving a district’s historic aspects can require controls over contextual features of the streetscape, not only existing historic buildings.
- Delegation to an administrative commission is permissible when the governing standard and the regulated environment provide reasonable guidance, and when ordinances supply design guidelines and standards that limit discretion.
- Summary judgment may be entered against the moving party when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and the nonmovant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- An overlay historic district may coexist with underlying zoning classifications and does not constitute spot zoning when adopted pursuant to planning objectives and applied to a substantial area rather than an isolated parcel.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Raleigh’s Oakwood historic-district overlay and the enabling statutes, ruling that historic preservation supports exterior design regulation (including new construction), that the “incongruity” standard was sufficiently constrained by the district’s characteristics and adopted guidelines, and that summary judgment for the City was proper because the challenges presented only legal questions.


A-S-P Assocs. v. City of Raleigh, 298 N.C. 207, 258 S.E.2d 444 (N.C. 1979)