The North Carolina Supreme Court issued a decision Thursday reversing the Durham Court of Appeals and ruling in favor of Durham Green Flea Market in a zoning enforcement dispute with the City of Durham. The court held that a notice of violation issued by the city's planning department was deficient because it failed to describe specific zoning violations as required by Durham's own municipal ordinance.
The case, *Durham Green Flea Market v. City of Durham*, arose from a January 2020 site inspection conducted by a compliance officer with Durham's planning department. Following the inspection, the city issued a notice of violation on Feb. 10, 2020, which was served on the flea market by certified mail.
The notice informed the market that inspectors had observed a "failure to comply with an approved site plan" and cited this as a violation of the Durham Unified Development Ordinance, specifically Section 3.7.2. However, the Supreme Court found this description inadequate under the requirements of Durham's own zoning rules.
Writing for the court, Justice Allen emphasized the fundamental responsibility of local governments in zoning enforcement. "Local governments have a responsibility to enact clear, unambiguous zoning rules," Allen wrote, citing the court's recent decision in *Arter v. Orange County* (2024).
The court's analysis focused on the plain language requirements of Durham's Unified Development Ordinance, which mandates that notices of violation must describe the specific zoning violations observed. According to the opinion, the city's notice fell short of this standard by failing to provide adequate detail about what aspects of the approved site plan the flea market had allegedly failed to follow.
The case had a complex procedural history before reaching the state's highest court. Durham County Superior Court Judge James E. Hardin Jr. initially ruled against the flea market in an order entered on June 9, 2023. The market then appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decision in a divided panel opinion reported at 296 N.C. App. 594 (2024).
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on Sept. 10, 2025, before issuing its reversal decision on Dec. 12, 2025. The court's ruling was pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) (2023), which governs appeals from Court of Appeals decisions.
The flea market was represented by attorneys Troy D. Shelton and Robert T. Perry, while the City of Durham was represented by Senior Assistant City Attorneys John Roseboro and Aarin K. Miles.
The Supreme Court's decision emphasized the importance of procedural compliance in municipal zoning enforcement. By requiring that notices of violation contain specific descriptions of alleged violations, the court reinforced the principle that property owners must receive adequate notice to understand what corrective actions may be required.
Site plans, as defined in North Carolina General Statute § 160D-102(29), are scaled drawings and supporting text that show the relationship between property boundaries and existing or proposed uses, buildings, or structures on a lot. These plans are typically required as part of the development approval process and serve as the baseline against which compliance is measured.
The court's ruling has implications beyond this specific case, as it clarifies the standard that municipalities across North Carolina must meet when issuing zoning violation notices. The decision reinforces that vague or general allegations are insufficient when property rights are at stake.
The Supreme Court's order remands the case with specific instructions to the City of Durham to dismiss the notice of violation. This directive leaves no room for the city to attempt to cure the deficient notice through amendment or reissuance.
The decision continues a trend of North Carolina courts requiring strict adherence to procedural requirements in zoning enforcement cases. The emphasis on clear, unambiguous rules serves to protect property owners' due process rights while maintaining the ability of local governments to enforce legitimate zoning requirements.
For the Durham Green Flea Market, the victory represents vindication after nearly five years of litigation. The business can now operate without the cloud of the disputed notice of violation, though the ruling does not prevent the city from conducting new inspections or issuing properly detailed notices in the future if violations are observed.
The case also serves as a reminder to municipal planning departments throughout North Carolina to ensure their enforcement procedures comply with their own ordinance requirements. Clear, specific notices protect both municipalities and property owners by establishing precisely what violations are alleged and what corrective action may be necessary.