Is a taking under North Carolina’s Map Act a taking of an indefinite duration or a temporary taking ? The North Carolina Supreme Court in Mata v. North Carolina Department of Transportation and North Carolina Turnpike Authority, No. 217PA24-1 (Dec. 12, 2025) recently ruled that takings under the Map Act are takings of an indefinite duration, not a temporary taking.
After Kirby v. N.C. Dep’t of Transp., 368 N.C. 847 (2016), held that Map Act restrictions are compensable takings, the North Carolina legislature rescinded all Map Act corridors, and ultimately repealed the Map Act. The landowners in this case filed an inverse condemnation action in 2019 seeking compensation for what they characterized as a twenty-year encumbrance from the time that a corridor map was recorded for their property to the end of the Map Act. The trial court and Court of Appeals agreed the Map Act recording effected a taking, but despite Kirby’s holding that the Map Act created a taking of indefinite duration, found that the subsequent end of the Map Act turned the taking into a temporary taking. The difference is whether you have a one time taking back in the 90’s or a twenty-year plus temporary taking. Obviously the longer temporary taking would be more lucrative for the landowner, hence their position here.
The court reaffirmed that, under existing precedent, just compensation must be paid for the indefinite taking based on the fair market value at the time of the taking, regardless of subsequent rescission and restoration of rights. This means the valuation problem for the case becomes a retrospective valuation of a one time taking back in the 90’s, rather than a two decade temporary taking.
Leave A Comment