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 had a provision (Article IV, Part III) requiring all construction drawings submitted for approval to be "signed by and carry the seal of the professional engineer responsible for their preparation." The town interpreted that language to exclude drawings prepared by licensed professional architects. The Town Attorney asked the AG whether the town's interpretation was valid. Assistant Attorney General Grayson G. Kelley answered no.
The reasoning runs in two steps.
Step 1: Architects and engineers have overlapping practice areas, defined by the General Assembly. Chapter 83A licenses architects. Chapter 89C licenses engineers. Chapter 89A licenses landscape architects. Each chapter defines what its licensees may do and expressly acknowledges that the practices overlap. § 89C-25 says nothing in the engineering chapter "shall be construed to prevent or affect... The practice of architecture, landscape architecture or contracting or any other legally recognized profession or trade." § 83A-12 mirrors that protection in the architecture chapter: nothing in the architecture chapter prevents "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."
The general rule (from 82 ALR 2d on the architect-engineer license overlap) is that when a service falls within both professional licenses, the professional performing it does so under the license he or she holds. The critical inquiry is whether the service is within the scope of the license held by the professional.
Step 2: Chapter 160A does not let a municipality redraw the architecture-engineering line. Towns get their authority from Chapter 160A. The grant lets them adopt reasonable land-use ordinances for public health, safety, and welfare. Nothing in Chapter 160A authorizes a town to administratively narrow the practice scope of a state-licensed profession. The Carrboro ordinance, as applied to exclude architects, did exactly that: it told architects that a service the General Assembly authorized them to perform (preparing construction drawings) could not be done in Carrboro. That contradiction with the state licensure scheme placed the ordinance outside the town's authority.
The AG concluded that the ordinance, interpreted to exclude architects, was unreasonable and beyond the town's power. The opinion did not address whether the town could specify substantive content requirements for construction drawings (structural calculations, code compliance certifications) that might effectively require engineering input on certain types of projects. Those requirements would be content rules, not professional exclusion rules.
The practical upshot for Carrboro: architects could prepare and seal construction drawings for projects in the town, the same as engineers. The ordinance's blanket engineer-only requirement was unenforceable.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1989. 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. The professional licensing chapters (Chapters 83A, 89A, 89C) have been amended several times since 1989. The Building Code and various federal and state safety standards now impose additional requirements on construction drawings, particularly for structural and life-safety components. The basic rule that a municipality cannot exclude a state-licensed profession from its statutory scope of practice remains intact.
Background and statutory framework
The architecture-engineering overlap is a perennial topic in design professional law. The two professions have distinct origins (architecture from artistic and aesthetic design tradition; engineering from mathematical and physical sciences) but converged on a common project type: buildings. Modern construction requires both disciplines, and the boundary between them shifts depending on the building type, complexity, and applicable codes.
The General Assembly's solution in Chapters 83A and 89C is a both/and rather than either/or. Architects can do engineering work that is incidental to their architectural projects. Engineers can do architectural work that is incidental to their engineering projects. The "incidental" qualifier polices the boundary at the extremes (a structural engineer cannot redesign the building's program; an architect cannot perform complex structural analysis without engineering input), but for most building projects, either profession can stamp the drawings.
That overlap is not a glitch; it is the system. The General Assembly chose to credentialize each profession comprehensively and let competition between qualified professionals (and project demands) sort out who actually gets the work on a given project. A town that picks one profession over the other is overriding that legislative choice.
The opinion does not say towns are powerless on construction-drawing review. A town can certainly require drawings to comply with building codes, to include specific information, to be in particular formats, and to address particular concerns (utility hookups, storm-water management, fire protection access). Those are substantive requirements that any qualified design professional must satisfy. What the town cannot do is exclude a profession the state has licensed to provide the service.
The Carrboro ordinance language reads like an oversight: someone drafted "professional engineer" as a stand-in for "design professional" without realizing it would block architects. The AG opinion provides the legal framework for correction; the political path forward for Carrboro would have been to amend the ordinance to refer broadly to "licensed design professional" or to specifically include architects.
Common questions
Could the ordinance be saved by reading "professional engineer" broadly to include architects?
The AG opinion did not require reading the ordinance that way. The town had interpreted "professional engineer" narrowly to exclude architects. A broader reading would also save the ordinance, but the AG's holding was that the narrow reading the town had adopted was beyond the town's authority.
Could the town require both an engineer and an architect on certain projects?
In principle, a town could impose substantive content requirements that require both perspectives (a structural certification plus an architectural certification). That would be a content rule, not a professional exclusion rule, and the same analysis would not apply. Whether the specific content requirement is reasonable would depend on the project type and the rule's substance.
Did this opinion apply to professional services more broadly, like landscape architecture or general contracting?
Yes, by analogy. The opinion's holding (a municipality cannot redraw the licensing line) applies to any state-licensed profession. A town that excluded landscape architects from doing landscape architecture work (or general contractors from doing general contracting work) would face the same problem.
What if the town's ordinance was specific to certain types of construction, like industrial facilities where engineering judgment dominates?
The opinion did not address that variation. A more narrowly-tailored ordinance that required engineering involvement for genuinely engineering-heavy projects might fit within a town's powers, depending on whether it crossed into excluding architects from work the state had licensed them for.
Did Carrboro have to amend its ordinance after this opinion?
The AG opinion was advisory, not binding. The town could have continued enforcing the ordinance against architects until challenged in court. But the AG's view would have been persuasive to a reviewing court, and a town facing such an opinion typically takes the prudent step of amending the language.
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 1026 (architect-engineer license overlap)
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:
- "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