Once the General Assembly fixed the Carteret-Craven county boundary in a statute, can the NC Geodetic Survey Section adjust the line on the ground to accommodate landowners whose property would otherwise be split between counties?

Plain-English summary

In 1993, the General Assembly enacted Chapter 207 of the Session Laws to fix the boundary line between Carteret and Craven counties. The statute relied on a map dated May 28, 1992, and described the boundary as a series of "calls" (geometric segments) with coordinates derived from aerial photography. Because aerial photogrammetry has inherent measurement uncertainty, each call carried a "+" or "-" tolerance, giving the surveyors a narrow band within which the line had to be physically located on the ground.

After the statute was ratified, two landowners asked Carteret and Craven officials to adjust the line so that three lots of a single subdivision would end up in the same county as the rest of the subdivision. The N.C. Geodetic Survey Section asked the AG whether it could deviate from the statutory coordinates to accommodate the request.

Senior Deputy Attorney General Daniel C. Oakley and Associate Attorney General David W. Berry said no. The constitutional power to fix county boundaries belongs to the General Assembly under Article VII, Section 1 of the NC Constitution. The Supreme Court confirmed in Dare County Commissioners v. Currituck County Commissioners, 95 N.C. 189 (1886), and Mills v. Williams, 33 N.C. 558 (1850), that the legislature "may change the boundaries of existing counties at its pleasure." When the legislature acts, the executive branch's job is to implement the statute, not to second-guess it.

The opinion then ran through the standard NC tools of statutory construction. Hyler v. GTE Products Co., 333 N.C. 258 (1993), and Evans v. AT&T Technologies, 332 N.C. 78 (1992), require courts to give statutory words their natural and ordinary meaning unless the context requires otherwise. Correll v. Division of Social Services, 332 N.C. 141 (1992), and Electric Supply Co. v. Swaim Elec. Co., 328 N.C. 651 (1988), require courts to begin with the statute's plain language. Henry v. A.C. Lawrence Leather Co., 234 N.C. 126 (1951), instructs that technical terms in a statute are presumed to have their technical meaning unless the legislature signals otherwise.

Applying those tools, Chapter 207's text was clear. It established a new portion of the county line. The calls in the boundary description set a defined range of coordinates. The Geodetic Survey Section could physically locate the line anywhere within the prescribed plus-or-minus range, but it could not push the line outside that range to accommodate individual landowners.

The structural reason was just as important as the textual one. Once a county-boundary statute is on the books, county officials and surveyors who try to negotiate variances would create what the opinion called "an ad hoc method of establishing the county boundary." Other landowners along the line could then demand similar accommodations, and the legislatively fixed boundary would dissolve into a patchwork of administrative adjustments. The General Assembly's plenary boundary-fixing power would be diluted to a starting point for negotiation. That cannot be the intent of a statute whose entire purpose is to nail down a contested boundary.

The opinion's second question addressed how G.S. § 153-18 applied. Section 6 of Chapter 207 required the affected boundary to be surveyed and mapped under § 153-18, which is the general county-boundary dispute resolution statute. The AG harmonized the two using the Batten v. N.C. Dept. of Correction, 326 N.C. 338 (1990), principle that general and specific statutes addressing common subject matter should be read together. The specific statute (Chapter 207) decided where the boundary would be. Section 153-18 procedures applied only to disputes within the prescribed range of coordinates. Outside that range, § 153-18 had nothing to say.

The opinion closed with a clean statement of remedy: the path for landowners who wanted a different result was a statutory amendment, not a survey-section variance and not a court action.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994. 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.

G.S. § 153-18 has been amended and now sits in a slightly different statutory context for county boundary work. The constitutional principle that the General Assembly fixes county boundaries under Art. VII, § 1 has not changed. Anyone working on a current NC county-boundary issue should pull the current statute and the most recent boundary acts for the affected counties.

Common questions

Q: Why did the legislature use coordinates with a tolerance instead of a precise metes-and-bounds description?
A: Because the boundary was derived from aerial photography, not from a ground survey. Photogrammetric coordinates have inherent measurement uncertainty. The plus-or-minus tolerance acknowledged that physical surveys on the ground would refine the coordinates within a defined band. The legislature picked the band; the surveyors did the precise work inside it.

Q: What happens to a landowner whose property gets split between counties?
A: The opinion did not solve that problem. It identified the legal remedy (legislative amendment) and left the choice to the affected counties and landowners. In practice, NC counties often work out informal arrangements for tax billing, service provision, and emergency response on split parcels, but the legal status of the parcel remains as the statute fixes it.

Q: Why doesn't the doctrine of equity offer relief here?
A: Because the General Assembly's boundary-fixing power is plenary under the NC Constitution. Equity cannot override constitutional allocations of power. A court cannot move the line; only the legislature can.

Q: What is the Geodetic Survey Section's actual role?
A: It's the state's professional survey arm. When the legislature enacts a boundary description, the Survey Section physically locates the line on the ground using the statutory coordinates and the agreed-upon tolerances. It marks the line, records monuments, and produces the final plat for filing in the registers of deeds.

Q: Could the counties have asked the legislature to amend Chapter 207 before the line was located?
A: Yes. That is the proper procedural route for landowners who want the line adjusted. The opinion explicitly noted that the remedy "is in the legislature and not in the courts."

Q: How does this opinion handle G.S. § 153-18?
A: By reading the general boundary-dispute statute alongside the specific boundary-fixing statute. The general statute supplies procedures for resolving disputes within the legislatively prescribed range, including survey costs, recording requirements, and entry onto private property for survey work. It does not authorize the survey section to push the line beyond the prescribed range.

Background and statutory framework

North Carolina county boundaries originate either in colonial-era patents or in subsequent legislative action. Article VII, Section 1 of the NC Constitution preserves the legislature's plenary power over county lines. Boundary disputes between counties are usually resolved through G.S. § 153-18, which sets up a survey-and-map procedure. The harder cases get a session-law solution, like Chapter 207 of the 1993 Session Laws, in which the legislature itself sets the coordinates.

Photogrammetric boundary descriptions are common in modern NC boundary acts because aerial surveying is faster and cheaper than ground surveying for long, irregular lines. The trade-off is the inherent uncertainty in coordinates derived from photographs. The legislature manages that uncertainty by stating coordinates with a defined tolerance, which gives the ground-survey team a band to work in while still locking down the line within usable limits.

When landowners ask for adjustments to a legislatively fixed line, they are essentially asking for a private bill (or a special amendment) that moves the line for their benefit. NC has a tradition of considering such requests, particularly when they reflect agreed-upon corrections to clerical errors or natural-feature changes. But the request has to go to the General Assembly, not to the executive branch. The AG's opinion in this case is a textbook application of that constitutional separation.

Citations

• N.C. Const. art. VII, § 1 (General Assembly's power to fix county boundaries)
• Chapter 207 of the 1993 Session Laws (Act to Establish the Boundary Line Between Carteret and Craven Counties)
• N.C.G.S. § 153-18 (uncertain or disputed county boundaries; survey and resolution procedure)
• Dare County Commissioners v. Currituck County Commissioners, 95 N.C. 189 (1886)
• Mills v. Williams, 33 N.C. 558 (1850)
• Hyler v. GTE Products Co., 333 N.C. 258, 425 S.E.2d 698 (1993)
• Evans v. AT&T Technologies, 332 N.C. 78, 418 S.E.2d 503 (1992)
• Correll v. Division of Social Services, 332 N.C. 141, 418 S.E.2d 232 (1992)
• Electric Supply Co. v. Swaim Elec. Co., 328 N.C. 651, 403 S.E.2d 291 (1988)
• Lemmons v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc., 322 N.C. 271, 367 S.E.2d 655 (1988)
• Henry v. A.C. Lawrence Leather Co., 234 N.C. 126, 66 S.E.2d 693 (1951)
• Batten v. N.C. Dept. of Correction, 326 N.C. 338, 389 S.E.2d 35 (1990)

Source

• Landing page: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/establish-the-boundary-line-between-carteret-and-craven-counties/

Original opinion text

March 8, 1994

Gary Thompson Chief of Field Operations

N.C. Geodetic Survey Section Post Office Box 27687 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

RE: 1993 Session Laws, Chapter 207, (An Act to Establish the Boundary Line Between Carteret and Craven Counties)

Dear Mr. Thompson:

On December 13, 1993, you submitted a written request for guidance by this office as to whether Carteret and Craven Counties, with assistance from the N.C. Geodetic Survey Section, can deviate from a specific range of coordinates prescribed by the General Assembly in the above referenced legislation. Please note that this memorandum constitutes an advisory opinion to the

N.C. Geodetic Survey Section as to whether it can survey and monument the Carteret-Craven boundary line in a manner contrary to the legislature's express coordinates. Therefore, you should advise Carteret and Craven County officials to solicit the legal opinion and advice of their respective county attorney for further specific guidance should they require it.

During our telephone conversation on December 14, 1993, I suggested that the plain meaning of Chapter 207 indicated that the N.C. Geodetic Survey Section had no legal justification for deviating from the specific range of coordinates as set forth by the General Assembly. My subsequent research of controlling constitutional and statutory provisions, as well as applicable case law supports my initial conclusion.

I. Factual Background

The N.C. Geodetic Survey Section of the Division of Land Resources has been assisting Carteret and Craven County officials in their survey and monumentation of a portion of their county boundary, pursuant to Chapter 207 of the 1993 Session Laws (hereinafter "Act"). The Act is premised on a map of the Carteret-Craven Boundary dated May 28, 1992. Each call in the boundary line description includes a certain range of coordinates due to the fact that the coordinates were determined from aerial photography, not by a metes and bounds survey. Thus, certain calls in the boundary line description are noted with either a "+" symbol or "-" symbol. According to the N.C. Geodetic Survey Section, the "+" and "-" symbols employed by the legislature in the boundary line description provide a limited range of area within which the exact boundary line must be located and established on the ground.

At the request of Carteret and Craven County officials, the Act's boundary line follows existing property lines between the two counties to the extent practicable. Subsequent to the Act's ratification on June 23, 1993, however, two landowners requested that Carteret and Craven County officials include additional parcels in either Carteret or Craven Counties. Evidently, the counties made a mistake regarding the county boundary along one subdivision. As now written, three lots of the subdivision will be in a separate county from the remaining lots. The N.C. Geodetic Survey Section has advised this office that incorporating these additional parcels will deviate from the legislature's prescribed range of coordinates in Chapter 207.

II. Applicable Law

Article VII §1 of the N.C. Constitution empowers the General Assembly to fix all county boundaries. The General Assembly may change the boundaries of existing counties at its pleasure. Dare County Commissioners v. Currituck County Commissioners, 95 N.C. 189 (1886); Mills v. Williams, 33 N.C. 558 (1850). Pursuant to its constitutional authority, on June 23, 1993, the N.C. General Assembly enacted Chapter 207 of the 1993 Session Laws.

The Act must be read in light of several well established principles of statutory construction.

Legislative intent controls the meaning of a statute; and in ascertaining this intent, a court must consider the act as a whole, weighing the language of the statute, its spirit, and that which the statute seeks to accomplish. The statute's words should be given their natural and ordinary meaning, unless the context requires them to be construed differently.

Hyler v. GTE Products Co., 333 N.C. 258, 262, 425 S.E.2d 698 (1993); Evans v. AT&T Technologies, 332 N.C. 78, 86, 418 S.E.2d 503 (1992).

"Statutory interpretation properly begins with an examination of the plain words of the statute. The legislative purpose of a statute is first ascertained by examining the statute's plain language." Correll v. Division of Social Services, 332 N.C. 141, 144, 418 S.E.2d 232 (1992); Electric Supply Co. v. Swaim Elec. Co., 328 N.C. 651, 656, 403 S.E.2d 291 (1988). If the language of a statute is clear and not ambiguous, courts "must conclude that the legislature intended the statute to be implemented according to the plain meaning of its terms." Hyler, 333 N.C. at 262. See also, Lemmons v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc., 322 N.C. 271, 276, 367 S.E.2d 655, reh'g denied, 322

N.C. 610, 370 S.E.2d 247 (1988). "[I]n the absence of a legislative intent to the contrary, technical terms or terms of art when used in a statute are presumed to have been used with their technical meaning." Henry v. A.C. Lawrence Leather Co., 234 N.C. 126, 129, 66 S.E.2d 693 (1951).

• III.
• Analysis
• A.
• Can the N.C. Geodetic Survey Section deviate from the range of coordinates prescribed by the General Assembly?

Consistent with the foregoing traditional principles of statutory construction, it appears that the

N.C. Geodetic Survey Section may not deviate from the range of coordinates currently prescribed under the Act. The Act's plain language demonstrates the clear intent of the legislature to establish a new portion of boundary line between the respective counties. Consistent with our conversations, the common dividing line between the counties, as now set forth under the Act, appears clear and is not ambiguous. The boundary line begins at a definite point of origin, and continues through a series of calls to a point in the existing county boundary line. Thus, the counties, with the assistance of the N.C. Geodetic Survey Section, may locate and establish the boundary line anywhere within the prescribed range, but not beyond it.

Any attempt to establish the boundary line outside the legislature's prescribed range would violate not only the plain meaning of the Act, but also undermine the Act's very purpose. It is presumed that the legislature understood the import of the calls used to express its intent as to where the boundary line must fall. The technical terms used in the Act must be used with their technical meaning. Therefore, the boundary line description enacted by the legislature must be followed by the N.C. Geodetic Survey Section.

The Act's avowed purpose is to fix a portion of the boundary line between Carteret and Craven counties. Construing the Act to allow county officials the power to enact variances to the statutorily prescribed boundary line would infringe upon the General Assembly's plenary power to fix all county boundaries. Assuming that the N.C. Geodetic Survey Section was allowed to deviate from the calls of the Act for these two landowners, what legal justification could be relied upon to prevent other property owners along the boundary line from demanding location in one county or another? Such an ad hoc method of establishing the county boundary is obviously not what the General Assembly intended by passing this Act. On the contrary, the purpose of this Act is to fix the boundary line without further controversy on the matter, not to foster additional disputes on where the line must be established.

B. How does N.C. Gen. Stat. §153-18 apply?

Section 6 of the Act requires that "[t]he portion of the boundary between Carteret and Craven Counties affected by this act shall be surveyed and mapped by Carteret and Craven Counties in accordance with G.S. §153-18." This statute sets forth, inter alia, the procedure by which counties may resolve disputes as to uncertain or disputed boundaries. It further requires the recording of the final plat of boundaries in the local register of deeds offices; grants the power of entry onto private property for the purpose of surveying; and, provides for the equal division of costs incurred with locating, surveying, marking and mapping of the boundary.

When two statutes deal with common subject matter, one in "general and comprehensive terms" and one in a more minute and definite way, they should be read together and harmonized, if possible, to effectuate consistent legislative policy. Batten v. N.C. Dept. of Correction, 326 N.C. 338, 344, 389 S.E.2d 35 (1990). Since the legislature, pursuant to Chapter 207 of the 1993 Session Laws, already has decided where the boundary line will be established, the only area of possible dispute is within the range of prescribed coordinates. Therefore, consistent with the legislative purpose of the Act, the procedures under G.S. §153-18 for resolving disputes as to uncertain or disputed boundaries would apply only if the counties disagreed as to the location of the boundary within the legislature's prescribed range of coordinates. To conclude otherwise would violate the plain language and purpose of the Act. Otherwise, the provisions of G.S. §15318 apply accordingly.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, it does not appear that the N.C. Geodetic Survey Section has any legal justification for deviating from the prescribed boundary line calls as set forth in the Act. Carteret and Craven Counties, with the assistance of the N.C. Geodetic Survey Section may negotiate and resolve the boundary line within the range set forth by the legislature, but may not expand the range for the boundary line, unless authorized by the legislature in a subsequent amendment. To find otherwise would both violate the plain meaning of the Act and undermine its very purpose. The remedy for owners of the subdivision lots at issue is in the legislature and not in the courts.

Attached please find a copy of the Act and G.S. 153-18 for your ready reference. If you need additional information or have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Daniel C. Oakley Senior Deputy Attorney General

David W. Berry Associate Attorney General