## Facts

- Bruce Clapp operated a grain and farm-chemical business on a 3.18-acre tract in Rock Creek Township, Guilford County, since 1948.
- Under Guilford County’s 1964 comprehensive zoning ordinance, the tract and surrounding area were zoned A-1 Agricultural; grain drying and storage was permitted, while chemical sales and storage continued only as a lawful nonconforming use.
- After the Chrismons bought nearby residential property, Clapp moved and expanded operations onto land adjacent to the Chrismons; the county advised the move and expansion impermissibly expanded a nonconforming use and suggested seeking rezoning.
- Clapp applied to rezone his 3.18-acre tract plus an additional 5.06-acre tract (about 8.24–8.57 acres total) from A-1 Agricultural to a conditional use industrial district and sought a conditional use permit limited to agricultural chemical-related activities.
- Following a public hearing, the Guilford County Board of Commissioners approved the conditional use rezoning and issued the conditional use permit; evidence showed the business benefited area farmers and the Chrismons were the primary objectors.
- The Chrismons sued for declaratory judgment to invalidate the zoning amendment and permit.
- The trial court upheld the county action; the Court of Appeals reversed, finding illegal spot zoning and illegal contract zoning; the North Carolina Supreme Court granted discretionary review.

## Issues

1. Whether the rezoning constituted illegal spot zoning, or, if spot zoning, whether the county made a clear showing of a reasonable basis for it.
2. Whether the rezoning and attached limitations constituted illegal contract zoning or valid conditional use zoning.

## Decision

- The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s judgment.
- The Court held the rezoning was spot zoning but was lawful because the county made a clear showing of a reasonable basis.
- The Court held the rezoning did not constitute illegal contract zoning; it was valid conditional use zoning accompanied by a conditional use permit.

## Legal Principles

- Conditional use zoning is permissible if the local government’s action is reasonable, not arbitrary or unduly discriminatory, and serves the public interest.
- Property rezoned into a conditional use district need not be available for all uses permitted in the corresponding general district.
- Spot zoning analysis requires two determinations: (1) whether the action is spot zoning; and (2) if so, whether there is a clear showing of a reasonable basis.
- Factors bearing on a reasonable basis for spot zoning include: size of the tract, consistency with the comprehensive plan, relative benefits and detriments to the owner/neighbors/community, and the relationship between proposed uses and adjacent uses.
- Conditional use zoning differs from illegal contract zoning because it involves a unilateral limitation offered by the landowner while the zoning authority retains independent legislative discretion; contract zoning involves reciprocal promises that bind the government and surrender discretion.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Guilford County’s conditional use rezoning and permit, ruling that although the action was spot zoning, it was justified by a reasonable basis grounded in community benefits and compatibility with surrounding agricultural uses, and that the county’s action reflected independent legislative judgment rather than an unlawful bilateral zoning bargain.


Chrismon v. Guilford County, 322 N.C. 611, 370 S.E.2d 579 (N.C. 1988)