A typical example of these mutual insurances occurs when the applicant assures the City Council that the land is used only for specific purposes and no other, and that, given this insurance, the City Council agrees to relocate the property in question and not to modify the zonace for a certain period of time.  “The sale of real estate by a municipality of a legislative character cannot be negotiated or sold. The reallocation of land by a municipality, which is based in some way on an offer or agreement by a landowner, is at odds and disrupts a comprehensive land use plan.  Local authorities should bear in mind that they are not required to grant reassignment simply because they like an applicant or because an applicant has acquired land or an option. An evolution that would be somewhat positive does not sufficiently justify the appearance of favouritism.  323 N.C 293, 299, 372 S.E.2d 564, 568 (1988). In the example of the Tribunal, it is particularly difficult to try to limit the discretion of future chambers with a binding agreement, not to change the zonat. However, the owner and the local government can obtain the same thing by using either a local development right or a development agreement. Both are based on the regulations that came into force at the time of the agreement, but they have the right to rely on that regulation for a long period of time. In Allred v. The city of Raleigh a 9.26 hectare wing has been converted from R-4 to R-10 to allow the construction of two skyscrapers in a detached house.
Two previous requests for similar reallocation of this site were rejected. The review of the approved reassignment petition was the subject of in-depth discussion on the proposed project. The planning committee`s report on the project found that the specific proposal for “very attractive” buildings was of an “exceptional architectural” quality.  He recommended, however, that he refuse to do so because of the inconsistency of the proposal with the overall plan and the opposition of the neighbourhood. After an in-depth discussion on the project, during which a prominent member of the general assembly represented the developer, the city council voted in favour of a new area of the land in order to “give the municipality the chance of this great development.”  The Tribunal and the Court of Appeal upheld the reassignment. However, the Supreme Court found that the reassignment was based on the applicant`s concrete plans, that it had not considered all possible uses to which the property could be used under the new shingles, and that it was therefore invalid. In a unanimous court, Chief Justice Bobbitt said: When the zero-and-non-aeig development agreement was concluded, the Court stated that “no municipal government has the power to enter into contracts that they control or limit in the exercise of their legislative powers and duties.” The Court also made it known that the development agreement required the city to take concrete measures with regard to a change in area.