Can a North Carolina town pass a land-use ordinance requiring all construction drawings to be sealed by a licensed engineer, blocking licensed architects from submitting drawings?

Plain-English summary

Carrboro’s land-use ordinance required construction drawings submitted for approval to bear the seal of a licensed professional engineer. The town read that language to exclude drawings prepared by licensed architects. Its attorney asked whether the engineer-only reading was valid. The AG answered no: if interpreted and applied that way, the ordinance would create a distinction between engineering, architecture, and landscape architecture outside the town’s statutory authority.

The opinion points to the state licensing chapters for those professions. It says architecture and engineering can overlap, but “the critical inquiry is whether the service performed falls within the scope of the license held by the person performing the service.” It also warns that some architectural functions are unavailable to engineers and some engineering functions are unavailable to architects. The AG did not say an architect could prepare and seal every construction drawing on the same terms as an engineer.

The AG assumed the town had adopted its ordinance under Chapter 160A. It found no authority there for the town to define the professional boundary differently from state law. The opinion called Carrboro’s restriction, as interpreted to exclude architects, unreasonable and in excess of the town’s powers. That is the AG’s advisory view; the opinion does not report a court judgment declaring the ordinance unenforceable.

Currency note

This opinion addresses the licensing statutes and Carrboro ordinance as understood in 1989. Check current professional licensing and local submission rules for a present project.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion quotes G.S. 89C-25, which says the engineering chapter does not prevent the practice of architecture or other recognized professions. It also quotes G.S. 83A-12, which preserves certain architectural work by licensed engineers when incidental to engineering projects or utilities. The AG used those provisions to explain why an engineer-only rule for all drawings could conflict with state-defined professional practice. The opinion did not decide which discipline must prepare a particular project’s drawings.

Common questions

Can Carrboro exclude every licensed architect from submitting construction drawings?

The AG said the town’s engineer-only interpretation exceeded its authority as applied to work a licensed architect may perform. Whether a specific drawing is within an architect’s license remains a separate question under the relevant licensing law.

Did the opinion give architects permission to perform engineering-only services?

No. It expressly says some functions belong to one profession and not the other, and makes the licensee’s authorized scope the critical inquiry.

Does the opinion decide rules for general contractors or other professions?

No. It addresses Carrboro’s treatment of licensed architects and engineers under this ordinance, while referring to landscape architecture as part of the statutory framework.

Citations

• N.C.G.S. Chapter 83A (architects)
• N.C.G.S. § 83A-12 (incidental architectural work by engineers)
• N.C.G.S. Chapter 89A (landscape architects)
• N.C.G.S. Chapter 89C (engineers)
• N.C.G.S. § 89C-25 (architecture and other professions not affected)
• N.C.G.S. Chapter 160A (municipal authority)
• 82 ALR 2d, Architect or Engineer-License, Section 4, page 1026

Source

• Landing page: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/authority-of-municipality-to-exclude-architects-from-preparing-plans/

Original opinion text

Requested By: Michael B. Brough, Carrboro Town Attorney

Question: Can the Town of Carrboro, under its Land Use Ordinance, require that all construction drawings submitted for approval be prepared and sealed by a licensed professional engineer, to the exclusion of licensed professional architects?

Conclusion: No.

Article IV, Part III of the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance contains the following provision:

1. "All construction drawings submitted shall be signed by and carry the seal of the professional engineer responsible for their preparation, who shall be licensed to practice in the State of North Carolina."

The Town has interpreted this provision to exclude the submission of drawings by anyone other than a professional engineer licensed in North Carolina, including licensed professional architects.

The question presented is whether Article IV, Part III of the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance, as interpreted by the Town of Carrboro, is a valid ordinance if applied in a manner which requires that all construction drawings submitted for approval be prepared and sealed by a licensed professional engineer, to the exclusion of licensed professional architects. It is our opinion that the ordinance, if interpreted and applied in this manner, constitutes the establishment by the Town of a distinction between the practices of Engineering, Architecture and Landscape Architecture, which is outside the scope of the authority granted to the Town by the North Carolina General Statutes.

The practice and licensing of Engineers is governed by Chapter 89C of the General Statutes. The practice and licensing of Architects is governed by Chapter 83A of the General Statutes, and the practice and licensing of Landscape Architects is governed by Chapter 89A of the General Statutes. Within these statutory provisions, the Legislature has set forth the services which may be legally performed by professionals practicing under each license. Additionally, these statutory provisions, as well as the majority of courts which have addressed the subject, recognize the existence of an overlap between the practices of Architecture and Engineering. For instance, N.C.G.S. § 89C-25 specifically states:

"This Chapter shall not be construed to prevent or affect…The practice of architecture, landscape architecture or contracting or any other legally recognized profession or trade…."

Conversely, N.C.G.S. § 83A-12 states:

"Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to prevent the practice of general contracting under the provisions of Article 1 of Chapter 87, or the practice by any person who is qualified under law as a 'Registered Professional Engineer' of such architectural work as is incidental to Engineering projects or utilities, or the practice of any other profession under the applicable licensure provision of the General Statutes."

Because of the overlapping between the two professions, the courts in the majority of jurisdictions considering the issue have generally concluded that where either a licensed architect or a licensed engineer performs services which could properly be regarded as falling within the statute licensing his profession, as well as within the statute licensing the other profession, he performs the services under the statute under which he is licensed. See 82 ALR 2d, Architect or Engineer-License, Section 4, page 1026. As such, the critical inquiry is whether the service performed falls within the scope of the license held by the person performing the service. As defined under individual licensing provisions, certain architectural functions cannot be performed by engineers, and vice versa.

It is our assumption that the land use ordinance was adopted by the Town pursuant to the powers granted by Chapter 160A of the General Statutes. Under Chapter 160A the Town has been granted the power to adopt reasonable land use ordinances for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. We find nothing in Chapter 160A which permits a town to administratively encroach upon the authority of the Legislature to define and regulate the respective practices of engineering and architecture. Nor are we aware of any provision in the General Statutes, other than the specific licensing provisions referred to above, that recognizes or approves the distinction made in the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance. It therefore appears that the restriction imposed by Section 15-87(a) of the ordinance is not a reasonable restriction and is in excess of the powers granted to the Town.

Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General
Grayson G. Kelley, Assistant Attorney General