Administrative divisions of Virginia

However, all local governments (counties, independent cities, and incorporated towns) are political subdivisions of the state.

Instead, a resident may bring an action for a declaratory judgment alleging that the ordinance is void because it was not properly noticed, goes beyond the county charter, is arbitrary, discriminatory, or unreasonably vague, or that it is preempted by state or federal law.

Each municipality is also required to have a board of zoning appeals empowered to grant variances and settle boundary disputes.

A political subdivision may exercise eminent domain against property in its jurisdiction, provided that it comports with the requirements set forth by Virginia law.

Following the United States Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, the Virginia legislature enacted limitations on the purposes for which property could be taken, specifying that public uses include government offices, utilities, and prevention of urban blight, and excluding the condemnation of property for the purpose of giving it to private parties.

If the government takes only part of the property, it must pay both the value of the land that was taken, plus any decrease in the market value of the remaining portion (called the "residue").

A resident can also seek compensation for damage to the value of real property arising out of government activity through an action for inverse condemnation.

The immunity to suit generally enjoyed by local governments does not apply to such actions, pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution as incorporated by the Supreme Court.

[11] In Virginia, villages are defined as tracts of land with fixed boundaries for the purpose of preventing the free roaming of animals.

[13] Various political subdivisions may do business with each other and the state and federal government in a manner similar to private individuals, limited partnerships, and corporations, with the notable exception that some restrictions may apply with regards to public information, competitive bidding, personal use of government-owned property, vehicles, resources, etc.

However, Virginia's annexation laws and past experiences have long been felt by many leaders to be a barrier to regional cooperation among localities.

Since the years of the Byrd Organization, state funding formulas have tended to favor rural areas, and growth through annexation was seen as a countermeasure financially by many cities and towns.

Partially because independent cities are immune from annexation by adjacent localities, an action much-feared by those in many communities, in the mid 20th century, a wave of consolidations of local governments led to almost the entire southeastern portion of Virginia progressively becoming a web of adjoining independent cities.

Many incorporated (formally constituted) localities, including counties, cities, and towns, some over 250 years old, became legally extinct between 1952 and 1975.

A law passed by the General Assembly in 1960 allowed any city and adjacent county to consolidate by mutual agreement.

In 1959, local business owners in the City of Richmond reacted to the statewide trend and jump-started the process toward a consolidation agreement with Henrico County.

Once a plan was agreed upon, the citizens of both Richmond and Henrico were asked to approve the merger in a vote, held on December 12, 1961.

The merger failed at the polls, and just two weeks later, on December 27, 1961, Richmond City Council filed suit to annex 142 square miles (370 km2) of Henrico County.

During the years that followed, Henrico County was granted immunity from the threat of annexation and consolidation, a State law that is still in force today.

More problems and hard feelings arose from a Richmond-Chesterfield case which began in 1965; they were later used as prime examples of obstacles to regional cooperation as the state legislators have considered changes.

In that case, while the annexation lawsuit filed by Richmond in 1965 was being heard, with the city seeking 51 square miles (132 km2) of the county, the leaders of the two jurisdictions, Irvin G. Horner, the chairman of the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, and Phil J. Bagley, Jr., the mayor of the City of Richmond, met privately and agreed to this compromise.

The Chesterfield-Richmond annexation agreement resulted in Richmond receiving 23 square miles (60 km2) of the county, as well as fire stations, parks, and other infrastructure such as water and sewer lines.

Compounding the unhappiness of many of the residents of the annexed area was the fact that Richmond Public Schools was already involved in a desegregation lawsuit in the U.S. Federal Courts.

They fought unsuccessfully for over seven years in the courts to have the annexation reversed, and ruefully called it the 23 square miles (60 km2) zone "Occupied Chesterfield."

At the same time, black plaintiffs who had lived in the city prior to the annexation claimed a violation of the National Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The plaintiffs prevailed in court by creation of a ward system which guaranteed black voters would be represented fairly in city government.

As a general rule, the individual employee is immune from being sued for inadvertently entering into a void contract with a private party.

However, if it is a county government that is alleged to be in breach, Virginia law imposes several additional steps before a lawsuit may be brought.

However, a city or town may be sued when carrying out a "proprietary" function, such as providing gas, electricity, water, sewage collection and disposal, or storm drainage.

High-level employees, such as mayors, city managers, and judges, are immune for decisions made within the scope of their employment.