The South Carolina Supreme Court issued a mixed ruling Tuesday in a closely watched municipal annexation dispute, granting standing to historic preservation advocates while upholding a lower court's determination that the annexation itself was invalid.
In *National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States and City of Charleston v. City of North Charleston*, the state's highest court partially reversed the South Carolina Court of Appeals, which had affirmed a circuit court ruling that the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the City of Charleston lacked standing to challenge North Charleston's attempted annexation of real property near Highway 61 and the Ashley River.
Writing for the court, Justice Few held that both the National Trust and Charleston have legal standing to challenge the annexation, directly contradicting the lower courts' findings. The standing question had been a key procedural hurdle that prevented the substantive merits of the annexation challenge from being fully addressed in previous proceedings.
The case centers on North Charleston's attempt to annex property in a historically sensitive area near the Ashley River, a region that has been the subject of ongoing development and preservation tensions in the Charleston metropolitan area. The National Trust for Historic Preservation, a national nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting historic places, joined forces with the City of Charleston to challenge what they viewed as an improper expansion of North Charleston's municipal boundaries.
The procedural history of the case reflects the complex nature of municipal annexation law in South Carolina. The circuit court initially ruled against the National Trust and Charleston on standing grounds, a decision that was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals. However, the circuit court had also issued an alternative ruling on the merits, finding that North Charleston did not lawfully annex the property because it was not "adjacent" to the city's existing limits.
The Court of Appeals found it unnecessary to reach the substantive legal issues regarding the annexation's validity, focusing instead on the standing question. This procedural posture meant that the core legal questions about adjacency requirements and proper annexation procedures remained unresolved at the appellate level.
The Supreme Court's decision to reverse on standing while affirming the circuit court's alternative ruling creates a comprehensive resolution of both procedural and substantive issues. By finding that the challenging parties have standing, the court ensured that future similar challenges can proceed to the merits. Simultaneously, by affirming the finding that the property was not properly adjacent to North Charleston's boundaries, the court provided clarity on the substantive requirements for municipal annexation.
The adjacency requirement is a crucial element of South Carolina's annexation law, designed to prevent municipalities from creating disconnected enclaves or leapfrogging over intervening territory. The court's affirmance of this principle reinforces orderly municipal growth patterns and prevents potentially abusive annexation practices.
The case attracted significant attention due to the involvement of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which typically focuses on protecting sites of national historic significance. The organization's participation suggests that the disputed property area may have particular historic or cultural value that could be threatened by inappropriate development or municipal boundary changes.
The City of Charleston's involvement as a co-petitioner reflects ongoing tensions between neighboring municipalities over growth, development, and territorial boundaries in the rapidly expanding Charleston metropolitan region. Such inter-municipal disputes have become increasingly common as communities compete for tax base and seek to manage growth pressures.
The legal team representing the National Trust and Charleston included attorneys from several prominent South Carolina law firms, including Walker Gressette Freeman & Linton, LLC, and Clement Rivers, LLP. North Charleston was represented by attorneys from Maynard Nexsen PC.
The case was heard by the Supreme Court on April 1, 2025, with the opinion filed January 21, 2026, reflecting the court's careful consideration of both the procedural and substantive issues presented.
The decision establishes important precedent for both standing requirements in municipal annexation challenges and the substantive adjacency standards that govern such annexations. Historic preservation organizations and municipalities challenging improper annexations now have clearer guidance on their ability to bring such challenges to court.
The ruling also reinforces the importance of proper adherence to statutory requirements for municipal annexations, particularly the adjacency requirement that ensures orderly municipal growth. This aspect of the decision may influence future annexation attempts throughout South Carolina, requiring municipalities to more carefully assess whether proposed annexations meet all legal requirements.
For the Charleston area specifically, the decision resolves a significant boundary dispute while establishing precedent that could affect future development and preservation efforts in historically sensitive areas near the Ashley River and other important cultural landscapes.