NC court grants an outside developer easements over HOA-owned streets
NC court grants an outside developer easements over HOA-owned streets
2026-09-12 · North Carolina · Courts
A North Carolina association that owns and maintains its own private streets cannot use that ownership to block access to a landlocked parcel inside the subdivision, where the necessity for access arose when the parcel was severed decades ago. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for an outside developer on May 20, 2026.1
The decision is worth attention in any North Carolina community with a former golf course, an undeveloped tract, or a commercial outparcel within its boundaries — a description that fits a great many coastal and Piedmont subdivisions.
The facts
All streets in The Cape subdivision in New Hanover County are private, and are owned and maintained by the homeowners association. A developer bought the landlocked former golf-course parcel inside the subdivision and claimed access easements over those streets.
The association resisted. The trial court granted summary judgment to the developer, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
What the court held
The developer prevailed on both theories it advanced: easement implied by prior use, and easement by necessity.
On necessity, the court's reasoning turned on timing. The severance of the golf-course parcel from the streets in 1986 created the access necessity, and what happened afterwards did not change it:
The subsequent closure of the golf course and Defendant's development plans cannot create, eliminate, or alter the necessity that existed at severance.
That cuts both ways as a matter of doctrine, and the court said so plainly — later events neither create nor destroy a necessity fixed at severance.
The court expressly declined to reach whether the intensity of the developer's proposed future use would overburden the easement, holding that question not ripe.
What it changes for boards and managers
The instinct in these disputes — that an association which owns the roads controls who uses them — is wrong, and this decision is a clean statement of why.
Ownership of the servient estate does not defeat an easement that burdens it. If access rights arose at severance, the association took title to the streets subject to them, and the association's subsequent maintenance obligation, assessments and gate do not change the analysis.
Three practical consequences:
- Know what is inside your boundaries that you do not own. Former golf courses are the obvious category, and North Carolina has a lot of closed ones. But the same analysis reaches undeveloped tracts retained by an original developer, utility and commercial outparcels, and church or school sites. Any of them may carry access rights fixed decades ago.
- The chain of title in the 1980s may matter more than the declaration. The operative event here was a 1986 severance, not anything in the governing documents. An association researching its exposure needs the conveyancing history, not the covenants.
- Resisting access is probably the wrong fight. Where the easement exists, litigating its existence is expensive and, on this authority, likely to fail.
The fight that is still available
This is the part of the decision that matters most to associations, because it identifies what was not decided.
The court declined to reach overburdening — whether the intensity of the proposed development's use would exceed the scope of the easement — holding it not ripe. That question survives.
An easement for access to a golf course serving a subdivision is not obviously the same as an easement carrying construction traffic and then the daily traffic of a new development. North Carolina law recognises that an easement's scope can be exceeded, and the court's ripeness holding preserves that argument for when there is an actual use to measure.
For an association in this position, the strategic implication is fairly clear: the productive questions are about scope, intensity, and the allocation of maintenance and repair costs as use increases, not about whether access exists at all. An association whose members fund street maintenance through assessments has a real interest in what a commercial user contributes to roads it did not build and does not pay for — and that is a negotiation, or a later case, rather than a challenge to the easement.
How it fits the 2026 line
Read with Valle Cay and Prevette v. Elsner, the North Carolina appellate courts have spent the last eighteen months being precise about the property-law fundamentals underneath association disputes: who holds the benefit of a covenant, who owns the burdened estate, and when an interest attached.
None of it is hostile to associations. All of it rewards associations that know their own title history and penalises those operating on assumptions about what ownership entitles them to do. An association that has never examined how its common areas and streets came to it is carrying an unquantified exposure, and these cases are what it looks like when it surfaces.
What to watch next
No petition for discretionary review has been located, though North Carolina's public docket system does not reliably return docket sheets, so treat that as unverified.
The overburdening question is the one to follow. If the developer proceeds and the association challenges the intensity of use, that dispute would produce the North Carolina authority that this decision expressly declined to create — and it is the holding that would actually matter to communities in the same position.
Related North Carolina HOA Topics
Stay on top of North Carolina HOA law
Every week: new North Carolina legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.