Carrboro Land Development Hindered by North Carolina Zoning Restrictions

First authorized in 2017, Carrboro’s  Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) aims to accomplish eight goals: simplifying the UDO, safeguarding equity, adapting to climate change, addressing Carrboro’s housing crisis, integrating policy change, increasing predictability, ensuring legal sufficiency, and incorporating incentives. Yet, after nine years of the policymaking process, the plan is still not concrete.

North Carolina’s restrictions on local downzoning may limit what Carrboro can accomplish. While the town wants to allow for higher housing density in parts of town, affordable housing incentives, improvements to stormwater management for flood preparation, and the preservation of tree cover, North Carolina’s legislature voted to restrict local governments from reducing density allowed on property or narrow permitted uses. The 2024 law also prevents changes that would make existing non-residential use nonconforming, meaning that land use that was previously legal cannot be grandfathered into new legislation. The only exception to this rule would be if every single affected landowner approves the change, a nearly impossible task that merely hinders land development. Thus, almost a decade later, Carrboro has not managed to push through a new UDO. 

Advocates for the state’s ability to override local zoning decisions lay their basis on the prevention of governmental overreach. Proponents believe that owners should not have to worry about their property’s development potential being hindered without their consent. If the town can decide at any point to reduce permitted density or change the laws regarding the property around them, their investments become unstable. Pro-development advocates argue that state-level limits protect property owners from sudden, costly municipal zoning shifts.

Proponents of Carrboro’s UDO base their argument on the need to adapt to changing times and the need for municipal governments to step in for local problems. With bodies of water like Morgan Creek and Toms Creek frequently swelling during heavy storms, Carrboro’s rocky history with flooding puts residents at risk. The new UDO would allow Carrboro to enact meaningful change on previously held conversations. Local governments need the authority to manage the consequences of development, such as infrastructure needs and environmental damage, and a broad restriction on alterations to the zoning codes interferes with these goals, hindering growth and presenting a threat to residents.

North Carolina’s 2024 law, buried deep within a Hurricane Helene recovery bill, restricts local municipalities from tailoring their land use to their communities in the name of protecting property rights. The restrictions pander to landowners and lessees, as creating affordable housing becomes a more strenuous task with very little vacant land left in Carrboro open for growth. 

Housing becomes more scarce and, thus, more valuable. On the other hand, allowing Carrboro discretion over local development could protect residents who bear the consequences of development. It aims to protect the interests of renters, as the proposed ordinance accommodates more affordable and resilient housing, which could result in cheaper and more accessible housing for renters. When it comes to the government handling these conflicts, North Carolina’s legal framework consistently favors state-level property protections over municipal flexibility.

The town of Mills River, NC, successfully passed its UDO under a government-approved exemption from North Carolina’s downzoning rule. However, shortly after, the state reversed its position, voided that exemption, and voided the new ordinance. For Carrboro, it shows that, even if the town passed its development plan, the state could attack it. According to a 2025 survey, nearly eighty-three percent of Americans support local affordable housing. However, this broad public support frequently runs into conflicts from concentrated lobbying interests in Raleigh who often slow the policy progress.

Part of the problem lies in political participation. In a 2019 study conducted by Data For Progress across ninety-seven towns’ zoning and planning board meetings, it was discovered that only 15 percent of meeting participants actually show up in support of new housing projects—a massive difference from the proportion of those who support these projects. Additionally, 63 percent of participants stand united against housing development. Meetings like these entrench opposition to housing. 

Opposition is amplified in communities with more resources and more knowledgeable homeowners. Poorer communities are often left without representation in these meetings. Consequently, they bear the brunt of development pressures. For Carrboro, perhaps the root of the issue lies in a lack of community voice. Until younger and lower-income residents mobilize at local planning meetings, older, wealthier interests may continue to dominate the local process, pushing Carrboro’s developmental needs and developers’ frustrations further into the dark.

Restrictive zoning is not limited to Carrboro or Mills River. Chapel Hill’s LUMO rewrite faces the same limitations and scrutiny. Chapel Hill’s project goals include much of the same aims as Carrboro’s. As these North Carolina towns develop housing for a more resilient, affordable future, state law complications may hinder progress and threaten years of work.