Local government development regulations commonly set minimum parking standards—1 parking space per 500 square feet of retail or 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit, for example. But North Carolina state law now limits local government authority for such requirements. Session Law 2026-39 (H.B. 162) amended G.S. 160D-702(c) to limit local government authority to require off-street parking spaces. The session law is effective on January 1, 2027.
This blog explores the meaning of the amended law and the impact on local government minimum parking standards.
The amendment to G.S. 160D-702 is a good reminder of related limits of local government authority (limits on requiring extra fire-access roads, limits on pavement design standards, and more). The blog outlines those related limitations as well.
General Limit
Under G.S. 160D-702(c), as amended, North Carolina local governments in noncoastal areas may not “[r]equire an off-street parking lot to meet a minimum number of parking spaces per development or structure, regardless of occupancy or use.” This seemingly simple phrase raises many questions about scope and implementation. Many of those questions are discussed below.
Carve-Out for Coastal Communities
This limitation does not apply to local governments in the coastal area as defined by G.S. 113A-103. That is the counties and municipalities subject to the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA): Beaufort, Bertie, Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chowan, Craven, Currituck, Dare, Gates, Hertford, Hyde, New Hanover, Onslow, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Pender, Perquimans, Tyrrell, and Washington counties, and the municipalities within those counties. Those local governments may still require minimum off-street parking standards.
Notably, though, there is an exception to the exception. Those CAMA communities cannot impose minimum off-street parking standards for certain historic properties:
- Within the boundaries of a National Register Historic District or a local historic district.
- That are either (i) individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places or (ii) individually designated as a local historic landmark.
- Individual properties on the Study List for the National Register of Historic Places as maintained by the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office or a national or State historic landmark, or properties located within a district on the Study List for the National Register of Historic Places as maintained by the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office or a national or State historic landmark.
Questions about Impacts on Typical Parking Standards
What is the limit?
It has been common (though not universal) for local governments in North Carolina to set minimum parking standards for new development. These rules have been one factor contributing to the large surface parking lots in front of new shopping centers and large parking decks adjacent to new apartments and office-buildings.
As amended, G.S. 160D-702 says that “[a] zoning or other development regulation shall not . . . [r]equire an off-street parking lot to meet a minimum number of parking spaces per development or structure, regardless of occupancy or use.” That is a prohibition on development regulations setting a minimum parking standard.
Does the law mean there will be no parking?
No. The law means that (outside of coastal areas) there will be no public regulation setting off-street parking minimum requirements. Developers and property owners will still make private decisions about parking. Customers and tenants commonly need parking. Lenders for development projects commonly require parking. Prospective buyers and investors also may expect parking. With all of those demands, developers and property owners likely will still provide some off-street parking, but the minimum number of spaces will be a private decision and not a public requirement.
Note that some local governments in North Carolina removed minimum parking standards before this legislative change.
Can a local government enforce a standard that is already on the books? What about existing parking lots built to old standards?
As of January 1, 2027, a non-coastal local government may not enforce a minimum off-street parking standard. This applies to existing minimum parking standards in addition to any proposed new parking standards.
A property owner with an existing off-street parking lot may have the option to develop space previously devoted to parking, pursuant to the local development regulations. If the development is subject to a special use permit or conditional zoning where approval was conditioned on a specific site plan, that property owner may need to amend the site plan to add new development.
Can a local government set a maximum number of off-street parking spaces?
Yes. The law does not say anything about parking maximums.
Can a local government require parking spaces that are per square foot or per dwelling unit (instead of per development or per structure)?
Probably not. The intent of the amended statute appears to be to preempt minimum off-street parking standards altogether. The statute explicitly states that the ordinance cannot set a “minimum number of parking spaces per development or structure.” While one could argue that a minimum parking standard “per square foot” or “per dwelling unit” is not preempted explicitly, the statutory language likely is broad enough to preempt such standards.
Many local government parking standards are based on square footage, dwelling units, or other sub-units of the overall development (1 parking space per 500 square feet of gross floor area or 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit, for example). Square footage is a fraction of the overall development or structure. Effectively, regulating per square foot is regulating per development or structure—just with an extra step of math. Similarly, a dwelling unit is a fraction of the overall development or structure. The same logic applies. With that, it seems reasonable to interpret the amended statute as prohibiting minimum parking standards based on square footage, dwelling unit, or other sub-units of the development or structure.
Can a local government use other regulations to set minimum parking standards? What about subdivision requirements?
G.S. 160D-702 states that “[a] zoning or other development regulation shall not . . .” set an off-street parking minimum. So, this is not just about zoning. This limit applies to any development regulation. G.S. 160D-102(14) defines development regulation to include zoning, subdivision, floodplain, stormwater, historic preservation, housing code, building code, and more. So, for instance, a local government could not use subdivision ordinance requirements to “[r]equire an off-street parking lot to meet a minimum number of parking spaces per development or structure, regardless of occupancy or use.” As discussed more below, there may be other vehicle-related development regulations that could still apply—such as driveway requirements—but those would have to be carefully crafted to avoid becoming a requirement for an off-street parking lot with a minimum number of parking spaces.
Can a local government regulate things like parking in the front yard? Commercial parking lots? Where parking is located?
Yes. Parking is a land use, and local governments still have the authority to regulate the land use. A local government can enforce rules to limit where parking is allowed on residential property. A local government can define commercial parking lot and regulate what zoning districts allow that land use. A local government can establish setbacks for parking uses (so that parking is at the rear of a property in downtown, for example). And, as noted above a local government can set parking maximums.
If a local government can’t require a minimum number of parking spaces, can the local government still require an off-street parking lot? What about a minimum square footage for a parking lot? Can a local government require parking spaces that are not in a parking lot?
The answer to these questions requires us to balance between the apparent intent of the law and plain language of the statute as adopted. The purpose of the law seems to be to prohibit minimum parking standards in applicable areas. The plain language, though, prohibits requiring a minimum number of spaces; it does not prohibit requiring a lot. Carrying that thought forward, though, the local government would be requiring a parking lot but not requiring a minimum number of spaces. So, the property owner could provide a de minimis “parking lot” with zero spaces. That would be an absurd and impractical outcome.
If the local government required a parking lot to be a minimum area (not a minimum number of parking spaces), that may technically avoid the prohibition in the statute. But, if the area is based on the area of parking spaces—and it’s just an effort to side-step the statutory preemption—that would be problematic.
What about requiring parking spaces that are not in a parking lot? This question turns on the definition of parking lot. Merriam-Webster defines parking lot broadly to be “an area used for the parking of motor vehicles.” If the requirement of parking spaces would, de facto, require what amounts to a parking lot, that would seem to run afoul of the law. What about one parking space? Is that a parking lot? That is not clear.
Questions about Related Vehicle and Development Standards
What about accessible parking spaces for individuals with disabilities?
To the extent that a property owner provides parking they must still comply with federal and state requirements for accessible parking spaces. Required accessible parking depends on the number of parking spaces in the lot.
The legal requirement to provide a certain number of accessible parking spaces arises from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and is detailed in Section 208 of the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. Those requirements, in turn, are incorporated into the North Carolina State Building Code (Section 1106: Parking and Passenger Loading Facilities of the 2018 North Carolina State Building Code: Building Code)
The legal requirement begins with a notable, limiting phrase: “Where parking spaces are provided . . . .” From there, the regulations specify a certain number of accessible parking spaces based on the total number of parking spaces in the lot. So, the local government may not require a minimum number of parking spaces in the lot. But, to the extent that the owner chooses to provide parking spaces they must still comply with the standard requirements.
What about other parking space requirements (i.e., spaces for charging electric vehicles, etc.)?
The preemption law simply states that the local government cannot require a minimum number of off-street parking spaces in a parking lot. It seems that a local government could still make requirements to the extent that parking is provided. So, a local ordinance could require a certain number of car-charging spots, but only to the extent that parking is provided.
What about design standards for parking lots (surface requirements, trees and landscaping, etc.)?
A local government can set design standards for parking lots to the extent that parking is provided. These might include things like setbacks, required paving, parking arrangement, trees and landscaping, and screening.
What about other vehicle-oriented requirements? (Driveways, emergency access, dumpster access, drive-thru stacking requirements, etc.)
Again, the law simply states that the local government cannot require a minimum number of parking spaces in an off-street parking lot. It does not affect local government authority for driveway standards, emergency access, dumpster placement, loading zones, or drive-thru stacking standards. Still, a local government should be careful to ensure that those other vehicle-oriented requirements do not effectively require a number of parking spaces in a parking lot.
Note that other statutory requirements (discussed below) affect local government authority for things like driveway standards, parking space dimensions, curb-and-gutter requirements, and more.
What about on-street parking?
The law is specific to off-street parking. It does not change local government authority related to on-street parking.
So, how can the local government manage parking issues that may arise from insufficient parking?
While many new developments will still include sufficient parking on-site, the lack of parking minimum standards does increase the possibility of insufficient parking and spillover effects. As seen in many downtowns, if a popular spot lacks sufficient parking, cars may wind up parked on nearby streets and lots.
As discussed above, local governments can still regulate parking as a land use (prohibiting front yard parking and such). Additionally, under G.S. 160A-296, municipalities “have general have general authority and control over all public streets . . .” except for state roads. And, municipalities have specific authority to regulate on-street and off-street parking under G.S. 160A-301.
If a local government anticipates spillover effects from parking, it may consider revising its parking regulations and coordinating with code enforcement and local law enforcement.
Reminder About Other Limits of Local Regulations
This new limitation in G.S. 160D-702 is a good reminder of the other limitations the North Carolina General Assembly has added to that statute in recent years. In addition to parking limits added at sub-subsection (2a), G.S. 160D-702(c) states that:
(c) A zoning or other development regulation shall not do any of the following:
(1) Set a minimum square footage of any structures subject to regulation under the North Carolina Residential Code.
(2) Require an off-street parking space to be larger than 9 feet wide by 20 feet long unless the parking space is designated for handicap, parallel, or diagonal parking.
. . .
(3) Require additional fire apparatus access roads into developments of one- or two-family dwellings that are not in compliance with the required number of fire apparatus access roads into developments of one- or two-family dwellings set forth in the Fire Code of the North Carolina Residential Code for One- and Two-Family Dwellings.
(4) Establish or require pavement design standards for public roads or private roads that are more stringent than the minimum pavement design standards adopted by the Department of Transportation.
Additionally, G.S. 160D-804 provides the following:
(j) Private Driveway Pavement Design Standards. – The regulation shall not require pavement design standards for new private driveway construction that are more stringent than the minimum pavement design standards adopted by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. . . . This subsection applies to construction of new privately owned driveways, parking lots, and driving areas associated with parking lots within a new development or subdivision that the developer designates as private and that are intended to remain privately owned after construction.
. . .
(k) Curb and Gutter Design Standards. – Notwithstanding G.S. 160A‑307 and G.S. 160D‑916, the regulation shall not limit, or prohibit the use of, curb and gutter design standards adopted by the North Carolina Department of Transportation for subdivision roads adjacent to, and serving, dwellings subject to the North Carolina Residential Code.
Local ordinances and permitting must adhere to these rules.
