House Bill 15 would change North Carolina law to make clear that the mere inclusion of a parcel of real property in a comprehensive transportation plan is not, by itself, a material fact that must be disclosed in a real estate transaction. The bill applies to plans that are not financially constrained and are adopted under state transportation planning statutes or federal metropolitan and statewide planning provisions. It also states that a seller or agent may not knowingly make a false statement about whether property is included in such a plan.
The bill amends Chapter 39 and Chapter 47E of the General Statutes. In practical terms, it narrows the scope of required real estate disclosures by specifying that transportation-plan inclusion alone does not trigger a disclosure obligation. The measure is set to take effect October 1, 2025, and applies to claims for relief filed on or after that date.
HB15 would affect North Carolina real estate disclosure law by creating a specific exception for property listed in a non-financially constrained comprehensive transportation plan. It amends the state’s required disclosure statute, G.S. 47E-4, and adds a new provision in Chapter 39 stating that such plan inclusion is not a material fact standing alone. The bill is aimed at limiting potential liability in property sales, leases, exchanges, and other real estate transactions, while preserving liability for knowingly false statements.
The bill’s title and structure suggest a pro-property-rights approach, and the available legislative record shows no recorded votes or committee testimony indicating opposition or support beyond the bill’s introduction and referral. Overall, the measure appears to have been framed as a clarification of disclosure law rather than a major policy shift, with sponsors presenting it as a protection for property owners and sellers. Because there is no transcript or vote history provided, the broader sentiment in formal debate cannot be assessed from the record here.
The main point of contention is likely whether inclusion in a transportation plan should be treated as a material fact in real estate transactions, especially for buyers who may view such plans as affecting future use or value of the property. Supporters appear to favor limiting disclosure obligations and reducing uncertainty for sellers and agents, while potential critics may argue that buyers should be informed about planned transportation projects that could affect property interests. The bill addresses this tension by excluding the plan listing itself from mandatory disclosure but preserving a prohibition on knowingly false statements.