In the hall of Durham City, the court provided the subsequent elaboration of the definition of zonification of the contract: . In Alderman v. Chatham County, 89 N.C. Ca. 610, 366 S.E.2d 885, Refused audit, 323 N.C. 171, 373 S.E.2d 103 (1988), a reallocation of 14.2 hectares from a residential agricultural area to a mobile home area was cancelled because only the development density under a restricted plan was submitted by the owner, instead of all permitted uses in the new district , was reviewed by the Board of Directors. The Court of Appeal held that a reassignment was not valid if “it was a direct consequence of the conditions agreed upon by the applicant and not as the valid exercise of the Lawkreis` discretion.” Id. at 619, 366 S.E.2d at 891. In several cases, the courts have also found that it is not appropriate to issue a summary judgment when it has been alleged that a reassignment decision is based on a single proposed project.
Nelson v. City of Burlington, 80 N.C. Ca. 285, 341 S.E.2d 739 (1986); Willis v. Union County, 77 N.C. Ca. 407, 335 S.E.2d 76 (1985); Rose v. Guilford County, 60 N.C.  322 N.C 611, 635, 370 p.E.2d 579, 593 (1988). Most states have declared these bilateral agreements illegal. Two cases dating back to the early 1970s established this principle of the North Carolina Zonarification Act. Both cases occurred in Raleigh and both were declared invalid, resulting in the development of apartment buildings in single-family buildings.
These first cases called this zonification contract practical. The court has meanwhile abandoned this characterization, but has kept the result – the practice remains illegal in North Carolina. The idea that has led judges to the margins in the past is that, if there is a contract zone, the change of zone is granted as a private and non-public benefit. Moreover, a mere assertion that a specific use, not all of the permitted uses, was found to be insufficient is not sufficient to invalidate a reassignment. This is done by Graham v. City of Raleigh, where a reallocation of housing to an office and institutional use were maintained through a contractual zoning challenge. The Board of Directors and the Planning Committee met nine times to discuss the zoning of the site and the protocol “clearly shows that the circumstances and conditions of the proposed zoning amendment were aware of the City Council and that they took into account all permitted uses in the districts of the Agency and Institution I and III when the regulated by-law was adopted.”  – Zoning deviations facilitate strict enforcement of zoning by-laws. A reassignment based on the promise not to do something that would be permissible may be considered suspicious.