Can a Tennessee municipality annex territory that is both outside its urban growth boundary and not adjacent to its existing city limits?

Plain-English summary

Tennessee municipal annexation operates under two grids that have to line up. First grid: territory has to be either contiguous with the city or fall under the narrow noncontiguous-island exception in § 6-51-104(d). Second grid: the territory has to be either inside the city's urban growth boundary or, if outside, annexed by referendum.

The opinion answers what happens when a municipality wants land that is both noncontiguous and outside its urban growth boundary. The answer is that no statutory path authorizes that combination. The noncontiguous-island exception in § 6-51-104(d)(1) requires the territory to be "entirely contained within the municipality's urban growth boundary." Outside that boundary, only contiguous territory can be annexed, and only by referendum. So a city cannot reach across a county to grab an isolated industrial parcel that is not within its growth plan.

What this means for you

If you sit on a city council considering annexation

Run the two-by-two grid before you spend time on a proposal. Plot whether the target territory is (a) inside or outside your urban growth boundary and (b) contiguous or noncontiguous with your existing limits. The four cells:

• Contiguous and inside the UGB: annexable by ordinance or referendum, depending on which provisions of § 6-58-111 still apply post-2014.
• Contiguous and outside the UGB: annexable by referendum only, under § 6-58-111(c)(2) and § 6-51-104(a).
• Noncontiguous and inside the UGB: annexable only via § 6-51-104(d)(1)'s narrow exception, and only when the land is used for industrial, commercial, or future-residential development, or owned by a governmental entity.
• Noncontiguous and outside the UGB: not annexable at all under current law.

If your target falls in cell four, your options are to amend the urban growth boundary first (a multi-step process under the Comprehensive Growth Plan), wait for the General Assembly to change the statutes, or pursue an interlocal arrangement that does not require formal annexation.

If you are a property owner facing potential annexation

The opinion is helpful if your property is far from the existing city. If your land is not contiguous and is outside the city's UGB, you can refuse annexation and the city has no statutory path to take you in. Look at the city's adopted growth plan map, which counties keep on file under § 6-58-107(b). Your property's location relative to the urban growth boundary and the city's main boundary determines what tools the city has against you.

If you are a developer evaluating a site

This opinion is a planning aid. A site outside the city's main boundaries gets two questions: contiguity and UGB status. If the answer to both is "outside," the city cannot annex you, but you also cannot get city services without annexation. That is sometimes a feature (lower tax burden) and sometimes a bug (no municipal water/sewer). Coordinate early with both city and county officials to understand the trade.

If you are a county official

This opinion strengthens the county's position when it disagrees with a municipal annexation push. If the city is targeting noncontiguous territory outside its UGB, you can point to this opinion as confirming the city has no statutory authority to do it. Where the city wants the territory enough to expand its UGB, the negotiated growth-plan amendment process under § 6-58-104 is the proper venue.

Common questions

Q: What is an urban growth boundary?
A: It is the line drawn under the Comprehensive Growth Plan that identifies the territory contiguous to a municipality's existing limits where the city expects to grow over the next 20 years and is best positioned to provide urban services. § 6-58-106(c)(1). The boundary is set in the county's growth plan and adopted by the local governments.

Q: Why does annexation by ordinance no longer work outside the UGB?
A: The General Assembly enacted legislation in 2014 and 2015 (2015 Tenn. Pub. Acts ch. 512 and 2014 Tenn. Pub. Acts ch. 707) to phase out and eliminate annexation by ordinance. The earlier provisions in § 6-58-111(c)(1) that arguably permitted ordinance-based annexation following a UGB amendment have been impliedly repealed by that legislation, as the AG explained in Op. 17-37.

Q: Can a city amend its urban growth boundary to capture land it wants?
A: Yes, but the process is not unilateral. Growth-plan amendments require coordination with the county and other affected jurisdictions under the Comprehensive Growth Plan procedures. It is not a simple step that an individual city can take on its own.

Q: What about that one weird industrial park in the middle of nowhere that ended up annexed years ago?
A: Some pre-existing annexations may rest on prior law. The opinion does not unwind anything that was lawfully done. It addresses authority going forward. Older annexations should be evaluated against the statutes in force at the time of the annexation.

Q: What does "noncontiguous" mean here?
A: Not adjoining the boundary of the main part of the municipality. § 6-51-104(d)(3). This is more specific than just "not next to the city." If your property is separated from the city by a strip the city already annexed, that may make the property contiguous depending on how the strip was created. Tennessee courts have looked askance at gerrymandered "strip annexations" designed to manufacture contiguity (e.g., Sw. Tenn. Elec., Town of Bartlett).

Q: Does this affect special districts or non-municipal local governments?
A: No. The opinion is about municipal annexation under chapter 51 and the urban-growth-boundary regime in chapter 58. Special districts have their own boundary rules.

Q: Is the contiguity requirement constitutional or statutory?
A: Statutory. The General Assembly could change it, but Tennessee courts have read the existing contiguity requirement as a "clear legislative mandate" (Town of Bartlett) that even courts will not bend.

Background and statutory framework

Tennessee's two annexation regimes overlap deliberately. Chapter 51 of Title 6 governs the mechanics: who can annex what, by what procedure (ordinance, referendum, or owner-initiated). Chapter 58, enacted as part of the Comprehensive Growth Plan in 1998, layers a planning regime on top: every county adopts a growth plan that draws urban growth boundaries around each municipality, marking territory each city is expected to absorb over a 20-year horizon. Annexation outside the UGB requires a higher procedural bar (referendum) under § 6-58-111(c)(2), reflecting the legislature's view that growth outside the planned area should be harder.

The 2014-2015 amendments closed off annexation by ordinance entirely, leaving referendum and the narrow noncontiguous-island provision as the two operative pathways. The opinion's contribution is to confirm that the noncontiguous-island provision in § 6-51-104(d)(1) is itself bounded by the UGB. The text is explicit ("entirely contained within the municipality's urban growth boundary"), and the AG declines to read in a workaround.

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has rejected attempts to manufacture contiguity through narrow connecting strips. In Southwest Tennessee Electric Membership Corp. v. City of Jackson, the court held that a city could not annex land that was contiguous only with previously annexed property that itself was not contiguous to the city's main boundary. Town of Bartlett v. City of Memphis ex rel. Loeb recognized a "clear legislative mandate" of contiguity.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-51-101 et seq. (Municipal annexation)
- Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-58-101 et seq. (Comprehensive Growth Plan)

Cases:
- Sw. Tenn. Elec. Membership Corp. v. City of Jackson, 359 S.W.3d 590 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010), strip-contiguity rejected
- Town of Bartlett v. City of Memphis ex rel. Loeb, 482 S.W.2d 782 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1972), clear contiguity mandate

Prior AG opinions:
- Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. 17-37 (Aug. 31, 2017): implied repeal of ordinance-based annexation outside UGB

Source

• Landing page: https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/opinions.html
• Original PDF: https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/attorneygeneral/documents/ops/2025/op25-004.pdf

Original opinion text

STATE OF TENNESSEE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
January 27, 2025
Opinion No. 25-004
Annexation of noncontiguous territory outside urban growth boundary

Question
May a municipality annex noncontiguous territory that lies outside the municipality's urban
growth boundary?

Opinion
No.

ANALYSIS

Tennessee municipalities seeking to annex territory must comply with two sets of
interrelated statutes. The first set, Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-51-101 et seq., governs municipal
annexation of territory generally. The second set, Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-58-101 et seq., concerns
the effect of a municipality's urban growth boundary on its ability to annex territory.

The urban growth annexation requirements stem from the "Comprehensive Growth Plan"
enacted by the General Assembly in 1998 to establish a comprehensive growth policy for the State.
See Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-58-102. To effectuate this policy, local governments were required to
create "growth plans," which, among other things, include "describing and depicting municipal
corporate limits, as well as urban growth boundaries, planned growth areas, if any, and rural areas,
if any." Id. § 6-58-107(b). An urban growth boundary identifies territory contiguous to the
existing boundaries of the municipality into which the municipality is expected to grow during the
next twenty years and to which the municipality is better able and prepared than other
municipalities to provide urban services. See id. § 6-58-106(c)(1); Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. 17-37 at
n.3 (Aug. 31, 2017).

Under Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-58-111(c)(2), a municipality may annex territory that lies
outside its urban growth boundary only by referendum. Annexation by referendum is governed
by Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 6-51-104 and -105.

This Office has addressed annexation as it relates to a municipality's urban growth boundary numerous times, most
recently in 2017. There, we discussed the implications of legislation passed in 2014 and 2015 designed to phase out
and ultimately eliminate annexation by ordinance in Tennessee. See Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. 17-37; see also 2015 Tenn.
Pub. Acts, ch. 512 and 2014 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 707. We explained that given the legislature's unequivocal intent
to abolish annexation by ordinance, a municipality could annex territory outside its urban growth boundary by
referendum only. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-58-111(c)(2). Therefore, even though Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-58-111(c)(1)
permitted a municipality to annex territory outside its urban growth boundary by ordinance following an amendment
to the urban growth boundary, this provision had been impliedly repealed. See Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. 17-37.

Under these provisions, a municipality may annex territory outside its urban growth
boundary if the territory adjoins the municipality's existing boundaries and the other statutory
annexation requirements are met. Section 6-51-104(a) provides that a municipality, either after
petition from interested persons or upon its own resolution, "may propose extension of its
corporate limits by the annexation of territory adjoining to its existing boundaries[.]" Id.
(emphasis added). Following such a proposal, the municipality must comply with the referendum
procedure laid out in Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 6-51-104(b)-(c) and -105 before the proposed
annexation is effective.

Tennessee courts have refused to allow municipal annexations of noncontiguous territory. See, e.g., Sw. Tenn. Elec.
Membership Corp. v. City of Jackson, 359 S.W.3d 590, 600-01 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (holding City of Jackson lacked
authority to annex by ordinance territory immediately adjoining property that was contiguous with the City's
boundaries, but was not itself contiguous with the City's boundaries); Town of Bartlett v. City of Memphis ex rel.
Loeb, 482 S.W.2d 782, 784 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1972) (holding City of Memphis lacked authority to annex by ordinance
territory that did not adjoin city's boundaries at the time of annexation, and finding a "clear legislative mandate" of
contiguity). These cases involved annexation by ordinance, not annexation by referendum. But, like Tenn. Code Ann.
§ 6-51-104(a), the statute governing annexation by ordinance only permitted annexation of territory adjoining the
existing boundaries of the municipality. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-51-102(a) (Supp.2005 & 2009).

But a municipality cannot annex territory outside its urban growth boundary if the territory
is noncontiguous. The only way to annex territory that is not contiguous with a municipality's
boundary (not the urban growth boundary, but "the boundary of the main part of the municipality")
is through Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-51-104(d)(1). See Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-51-104(d)(3). And
Section 6-51-104(d) provides that a municipality may "propose annexation of territory that does
not adjoin the boundary of the main part of the municipality" only when the territory is "entirely
contained within the municipality's urban growth boundary." Id. (emphasis added). That
language clearly prohibits a municipality from annexing noncontiguous territory outside the
municipality's urban growth boundary.

The territory must also be "used for industrial or commercial purpose or future residential development" or "[o]wned
by one . . . or more governmental entities." Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-51-104(d)(1).

JONATHAN SKRMETTI
Attorney General and Reporter

J. MATTHEW RICE
Solicitor General

JONATHAN SHIRLEY
Senior Assistant Attorney General

Requested by:
The Honorable Dan Howell
State Representative
425 Rep. John Lewis Way N.
Suite 556 Cordell Hull Bldg.
Nashville, Tennessee 37243