The University of Tennessee's Center for Local Planning (CLP), a division of the Institute for Public Service, has released a new policy guide examining the scope and limits of county authority under Tennessee's County Powers Act.
The guide, Granted Powers, Clear Limits: The County Powers Act and Land Use Controls in Unincorporated Areas, was authored by CLP Executive Director Josh Suddath and Senior Division Planner Ambre Torbett, with legal assistance from CTAS Manager of Legal Services Kristy Brown and Sam Edwards, JD, AICP.
The publication comes as counties across the state continue to grapple with growth pressures, economic development proposals, and land use disputes — often without the benefit of formal zoning authority. The County Powers Act, codified at T.C.A. § 5-1-118, allows counties to exercise certain powers otherwise reserved to municipalities, but the guide underscores that this authority is neither unlimited nor a substitute for zoning.
Central to the guide's analysis is the Tennessee Supreme Court's February 2026 ruling in Tinsley Properties, Inc. v. Grundy County, which held that a county resolution banning quarries near schools, churches, and residential areas functioned as a zoning ordinance in substance — and was therefore unenforceable because the county had not followed the procedural requirements of the County Zoning Act. The decision has significant implications for counties that have relied on the County Powers Act to regulate land uses by geography or district rather than pursuing formal zoning.
The guide walks through both tiers of authority granted under the Act — a standard tier available by simple majority resolution, covering contracting, property, and infrastructure matters, and an enhanced tier requiring a two-thirds supermajority vote that confers general police and regulatory powers. It also details key limitations, including protections for agricultural activities, exemptions for state-regulated industries, and the requirement that counties exercising enhanced powers honor the same variance and nonconforming-use protections that apply under traditional zoning.
Beyond the Tinsley decision, the guide reviews several other cases shaping the Act's application, including Robertson County v. Browning-Ferris Industries and SNPCO, Inc. v. City of Jefferson City, and flags an ongoing federal case, ExoticRidge Crypto Company LLC v. Hawkins County, as one to watch for its potential to further define the constitutional limits of county authority over industry-specific bans.
CLP is encouraging county officials to use the guide as a practical reference when reviewing existing regulations, considering new regulatory approaches, or evaluating whether formal zoning authority may better serve their communities.
Counties with questions can reach CLP directly at planning@tennessee.edu.