Can Maryland reuse land it bought for a canceled highway project to build a different government building instead?

Plain-English summary

A member of the Maryland House of Delegates asked whether land the State Highway Administration had originally acquired for a highway project, later abandoned, could instead be used to build a Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) field office. The question mattered because state law generally requires SHA to dispose of land no longer needed for "any State transportation purpose" from an abandoned project, offering it first to a county or municipality and then to the original owner, rather than keeping it.

The Attorney General concluded that building an MVA field office does count as a "transportation purpose," so the State could keep and repurpose the land without triggering the disposal requirements. The opinion traced the statute's history: earlier versions let a previous owner automatically reclaim land the moment a highway project was abandoned, no matter how useful the land might be to another State project, until a 1977 amendment fixed that by tying the disposal duty to an actual finding that the land was "no longer needed for any State transportation purpose." Because the MVA is part of the same Department of Transportation as the highway agency and is statutorily required to maintain enough field offices to serve the public efficiently, the opinion reasoned that building an MVA office directly serves a transportation function, so the land could be diverted to that use just as any government body may generally redirect condemned land to a new public purpose once the original purpose falls away.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1986. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

If Maryland cancels a highway project, does the state have to give the land back to whoever originally owned it?
Under this 1986 opinion, not automatically. The Attorney General concluded the original owner (and any county or municipality) only had a right to acquire the land if the Secretary of Transportation determined it was no longer needed for any State transportation purpose at all.

Does building a Motor Vehicle Administration office count as a "transportation purpose" that lets the state keep land from a canceled highway project?
Yes, according to the opinion. Because the MVA is part of the Department of Transportation and is required to maintain field offices to serve the public, the opinion concluded constructing such an office is a transportation purpose.

Could the state repurpose leftover highway land for any government building it wanted?
This opinion did not go that far. It based its conclusion specifically on the MVA's transportation-related mission and statutory duty to maintain field offices, and expressly declined to address whether other, less directly transportation-related uses would qualify.

Background and statutory framework

Maryland law requires the State Highway Administration to dispose of land it acquired for highway purposes once that land is no longer needed for "present or future State, county, or municipal transportation purpose[s] or other public purposes." For land from an abandoned project specifically, the statute sets a priority order for disposal, first to a county or municipality, then to the original owner, but only once the Secretary of Transportation determines the land is no longer needed for any State transportation purpose.

The opinion traced how that trigger changed over time. Originally, mere abandonment of the specific project automatically obligated the State to offer the land to its previous owner, regardless of whether the land might still be useful for a different State purpose. A 1977 amendment, prompted by the recognition that this rule forced the State to give up land that might still be needed elsewhere, changed the trigger to require an actual determination that the land was unneeded for any transportation purpose, not just the original one. A further 1983 amendment gave counties and municipalities priority over the original owner. The opinion found this legislative history, along with the general common-law rule that a government body may redirect condemned property to a new public purpose once the original purpose no longer applies, supported reading "transportation purpose" broadly enough to include the MVA's field office needs, since the MVA exists to administer and enforce Maryland's vehicle laws and is statutorily required to maintain sufficient offices for public convenience.

Citations

Statutes:

• TR §8-302(a) (SHA's authority to acquire land for highway purposes)
• TR §8-309(b)(1) (duty to dispose of land no longer needed for transportation or public purposes)
• TR §8-309(b)(2) (disposal procedure and priority for land from an abandoned project)
• TR §8-309(a) (statutory purpose: returning unneeded land to county/municipal tax rolls and transportation use)
• TR §8-309(b)(2)(i) (Secretary's determination trigger for disposal)
• TR §2-107(a) (MVA as part of the Department of Transportation)
• TR §12-104(a) and (b) (MVA's authority to administer and enforce the Maryland Vehicle Law)
• TR §12-104(c) (MVA's duty to maintain field offices)
• Former Article 89B, §6 (original 1931 disposal authority)
• Former Article 89B, §208 (original owner's reacquisition right)
• Chapter 539, Laws of Maryland 1931 (enacting former Article 89B, §6)
• Chapter 542, Laws of Maryland 1957 (enacting former Article 89B, §208)
• Chapter 134, Laws of Maryland 1969 (mandatory disposal of unneeded land)
• Chapter 13, Laws of Maryland 1977 (recodification as TR §8-309)
• Chapter 924, Laws of Maryland 1977 (limiting reacquisition to land no longer needed for any transportation purpose)
• Chapter 547, Laws of Maryland 1983 (giving counties/municipalities priority over the original owner)

Cases:

• Schweitzer v. Brewer, 280 Md. 430, 438-39 (1977)
• Shreve v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 243 Md. 613, 622 (1966)
• Management Personnel Service v. Sandefur, 300 Md. 332, 341 (1984)

Source

• Landing page: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Pages/attorney-general%E2%80%99s-opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Documents/pdfs/Opinions/1986/Volume71_1986.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, the linked PDF is authoritative.

PUBLIC PROPERTY

Highways—"Transportation Purpose"—Land Acquired For A Now-Abandoned Highway Project May Be Used For Construction Of Motor Vehicle Administration Field Office.

September 25, 1986

The Honorable Judith C. Toth
Maryland House of Delegates

You have requested our opinion as to whether land originally acquired for a highway project that has since been abandoned by the State may be used instead for the construction of a Motor Vehicle Administration field office. Your question arose after land of this kind in Montgomery County was considered as a site for a new Motor Vehicle Administration office. Although that particular site has since been ruled out, you have asked that we address the general question.

For the reasons given below, we conclude that such a substituted use of the land is permitted.

I
Governing Statutes

Section 8-302 of the Transportation Article ("TR" Article) authorizes the State Highway Administration ("SHA") to acquire private property "for any public purpose that it considers necessary or desirable to perform the duties imposed by this title ['Highways'] or for any other purpose authorized under this title." TR §8-302(a).

Understandably, it sometimes happens that land so acquired is later found to be unneeded: Highway construction plans may change, leading to the abandonment of a project; or, after completion of a project, it may be found that somewhat more land had been acquired than was used. TR §8-309(b)(1) provides that "if land acquired [by SHA] is not needed for present or future State, county, or municipal transportation purpose[s] or other public purposes, [SHA] shall dispose of the land as soon as practicable after the completion or abandonment of the project for which the land was acquired."

TR §8-309(b)(2) establishes the procedure for disposition of land from an abandoned project. That procedure requires that if "the Secretary [of Transportation] determines that the property is no longer needed for any State transportation purpose," the land must be offered for sale first to a county or municipality and thereafter to the person from whom the land was originally acquired or that person's successor in interest.

II
Legislative History

Before the enactment of the Transportation Article in 1977, the provisions of what is now TR §8-309 were codified as §§6 and 208 of former Article 89B. As originally enacted, by Chapter 539 of the Laws of Maryland of 1931, §6 vested the State Roads Commission with "full power and authority to dispose of" any land or bridge that it determined to be unneeded for the maintenance of the State's highway system or that ceased to be used in the highway system "by reason [of] the relocation of any road or bridge by the State Roads Commission." Former Article 89B, §208, originally enacted as §162D(1-C) by Chapter 542 of the Laws of Maryland of 1957, gave the previous owner a right to reacquire any abandoned road or right-of-way.

In Chapter 134 of the Laws of Maryland of 1969, the General Assembly for the first time not merely authorized, but required the State Roads Commission to dispose of unneeded land in its possession. The preamble to that Act noted that a substantial number of the unneeded parcels of land in the Commission's ownership at that time "are susceptible of private development, and ... many of these parcels of excess land have been owned by the Commission for many years." Accordingly, the Act declared the legislative intent to make those parcels available for development:

"[T]he State Roads Commission should divest itself from ownership of land not needed for current or future highway purposes or other public purposes in order that such land can be placed back on the tax records of the several counties and be used for residential development or be otherwise developed by private enterprise thus benefiting the economy of the counties and the State." Chapter 134, Laws of Maryland 1969 (enacting former Article 89B §6(1)).

The provisions of former Article 89B, §§6 and 208 remained unchanged until their recodification in a combined form as TR §8-309. See Chapter 13, Laws of Maryland 1977, sec. 2 at 381 (Revisor's Note). TR §8-309, as originally enacted, thus had as its purpose "to return unneeded land to the tax rolls of the counties and to make this land available for use by private enterprise." Chapter 13, Laws of Maryland 1977, sec. 2 at 378. To that end, TR §8-309(b)(1) generally required prompt disposition of land "not needed for present or future highway or other public purposes." Id. TR §8-309(b)(2) provided more particularly that, "[i]f the land is from a project that was abandoned, the person from whom the land was acquired ... has the first right to reacquire the land." Id.

However, that provision of TR §8-309(b)(2) was amended, before Chapter 13 took effect, to limit the previous owner's right of reacquisition to cases in which the project was abandoned "and the Secretary [of Transportation] determines that the property is no longer needed for any transportation purpose." Chapter 924, Laws of Maryland 1977. That amendment was enacted for the express purpose of "providing that the Secretary of the Department of Transportation may allow the use, disposal or transferral of certain property from an abandoned highway project for a transportation purpose prior to the disposal of such property." Id.

Finally, the previous owner's right to reacquire land from an abandoned project was further limited by the enactment of Chapter 547 of the Laws of Maryland of 1983. That act amended TR §8-309 to its present form. The stated legislative purpose of the amended section now is "to return unneeded land to the tax rolls of the counties and to make this land available for use by a county or municipality for any transportation purpose." TR §8-309(a). To that end, the Secretary of Transportation is now required to offer unneeded land from an abandoned project to a county or municipality for its transportation purposes before the previous owner may be permitted to reacquire the land. TR §8-309(b)(2). However, any such disposition is required only if "the Secretary determines that the property is no longer needed for any State transportation purpose." TR §8-309(b)(2)(i).

III
Intent of Statute

In our view, the primary legislative intent underlying TR §8-309 is to make land from abandoned highway projects available for other State transportation-related public projects. That intent, expressed clearly in the terms of the statute, is further exemplified in the history of the statute outlined in Part II above.

Before the enactment of Chapter 924 of the Laws of Maryland of 1977, the fact of the State's abandonment of a highway project was itself sufficient to trigger the prior owner's right of reacquisition. That is, if the State abandoned the project for which the land had been acquired, the State Roads Commission was statutorily required to offer the land to the previous owner, no matter how desirable, useful, or even necessary the land might be to another project. Chapter 924 was enacted for the explicit purpose of rectifying that situation.

Moreover, it is clear that TR §8-309(b) does not reflect a legislative intent to give local governments a prior claim to such land as against the State. Indeed, local governments were not given priority even as to the previous owner of the land until 1983, six years after enactment of the State's priority. Chapter 547, Laws of Maryland 1983. Therefore, we think it is unquestionable that the General Assembly did not intend to require the Department of Transportation to divest itself of land that is desirable or useful for transportation-related State projects merely because the land is not needed for the particular project for which it was originally acquired. See Schweitzer v. Brewer, 280 Md. 430, 438-39 (1977) (In construing statutes, "results that are unreasonable, illogical, and inconsistent with common sense should be avoided.").

We point out, in addition, that this power of the State to retain land from an abandoned highway project is by no means without precedent. To the contrary, governmental bodies ordinarily have full authority to divert land acquired for one purpose to another public purpose when that is appropriate:

"[W]hen property is condemned in good faith for the named public purpose, the necessary quantum (or quantity), or duration of the estate taken is ordinarily left to the sound business discretion of the condemnor, and if ... the land is no longer needed or desired for use for that particular purpose, the condemnor is at liberty to deal with the real estate in any legitimate manner that he sees fit, and neither the condemnee nor those claiming under him may object." Shreve v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 243 Md. 613, 622 (1966).

See also 3 Nichols, Eminent Domain §9.22 ("property acquired in fee simple by a public body for a particular purpose may be diverted to another use"). Thus, in the absence of the statutory provisions, neither the local government nor the previous owner of land from an abandoned highway project would have any right to acquire or reacquire ownership of the land.

IV
Permitted Uses of Land

The rights of local governments and previous owners to acquire land from abandoned projects pertain to land that "is no longer needed for any State transportation purpose." TR §8-309(b)(2)(i). Thus, you ask whether the construction of a field office for the Motor Vehicle Administration ("MVA") may be deemed a "transportation purpose" for retaining the land. In our view, the construction of such an office is a "transportation purpose."

The MVA, like the SHA, is an integral part of the Department of Transportation. TR §2-107(a). Its purpose is to administer and enforce the Maryland Vehicle Law. TR §12-104(a) and (b). Therefore, it has significant dealings with the public regarding licensing, registration, and enforcement, dealings that include hearings and other actions requiring the attendance of the affected individual. For the convenience of the public, the MVA is required to "maintain as many offices in this State as the Administrator considers necessary to carry out the powers and duties" given to it. TR §12-104(c). Thus, the construction and maintenance of the MVA's field offices directly serves the transportation functions that the MVA was created to perform.

In short, the statutory requirement of MVA field offices, which is clearly intended to facilitate the public's use of motor vehicles, makes the construction of those offices a "transportation purpose" within the meaning of TR §8-309. We believe that such a construction most fully effectuates the intent of that section. See Management Personnel Service v. Sandefur, 300 Md. 332, 341 (1984) ("[T]he cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and carry out the real legislative intent."). We need not and do not address the question of whether any other offices or similar uses of land by the MVA or other units of the Department of Transportation would be so directly related to transportation that their construction could be deemed a use of land for a transportation purpose.

V
Conclusion

In summary, it is our opinion that land originally acquired for a State highway project may be used by the State for the construction of an MVA field office after the abandonment of the project. In our view, such a use is a use for a "transportation purpose" and, thus, authorized by TR §8-309(b)(2).

Stephen H. Sachs
Attorney General
Nolan H. Rogers
Assistant Attorney General

Jack Schwartz
Chief Counsel
Opinions and Advice