Municipal annexation is often viewed as a routine act of local governance—adjusting boundaries to reflect growth and development. But a recent opinion from the South Carolina Supreme Court serves as a cautionary tale for municipalities, developers, and utilities alike, demonstrating how annexation decisions can spark serious disputes over land ownership, municipal authority, and water service rights.
The Dispute at a Glance
In a recent Advance Sheet Opinion, Nat’l Trust for Historic Pres. v. City of North Charleston, Op. No. 28313 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed Jan. 21, 2026), the Court invalidated an attempted annexation by the City of North Charleston and clarified important limits on how and when a city may expand its boundaries.
The case arose from North Charleston’s effort to annex a one acre parcel of land near Highway 61 and the Ashley River that was located within the City of Charleston. The parcel did not physically touch North Charleston’s existing city limits and was separated by land owned by the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
To bridge that gap, North Charleston’s annexation ordinance included a small sliver—just 62 square feet—of the National Trust’s property that also lay inside Charleston’s city limits. The National Trust and the City of Charleston challenged the annexation, arguing it violated South Carolina law.
Lower courts dismissed the case on standing grounds, but the Supreme Court took a different view.
Standing: Who Can Challenge an Annexation?
The Court first held that both challengers had standing.
The City of Charleston had standing because North Charleston’s annexation ordinance attempted to run through Charleston’s municipal boundaries, intruding into Charleston’s territory. The National Trust had standing because the ordinance purported to annex a portion of its privately owned land without consent. Even a minimal encroachment was sufficient to create a direct, personal stake.
What Does “Adjacent” Really Mean?
The heart of the decision lies in the Court’s interpretation of South Carolina’s annexation statute, S.C. Code Ann. § 53100, which allows annexation only if the property is “adjacent” to the municipality.
North Charleston argued that “adjacent” means simply “nearby,” not necessarily touching. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that “adjacent” requires physical touching. Because the parcel was separated from North Charleston by privately owned land located within another city, it was not adjacent—or contiguous—and the annexation was invalid.
Why This Matters for Land and Water Rights
Annexation often determines which city provides water and sewer service, which utility has the exclusive right to serve new development, and which entity controls infrastructure expansion and long-term planning. When a city attempts to annex land that is not truly contiguous, it can trigger territorial disputes, water service battles, and conflicts over the use of infrastructure.
This decision reinforces that clear, lawful boundaries matter—especially when water rights, utility obligations, and federally or statutorily protected service areas are at stake.
A Cautionary Note
The South Carolina Supreme Court’s decision sends a clear message: annexation cannot be used to bypass statutory requirements or established boundaries. As growth pressures continue across the state, disputes at the intersection of annexation and water rights are likely to increase—and this case will be a key reference point in resolving them.
