In this case we determine the circumstances under which an adjacent property owner or property owner in close proximity has standing to challenge a Board of Adjustment’s grant of a Special Use Permit. We hold that petitioners have standing to challenge the Raleigh Board of Adjustment’s issuance of a Special Use Permit to PRS Partners, LLC and RPS Holdings, LLC. Thus, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals holding otherwise and remand this case to that court for determination of issues not reached by that court.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On 15 November 2005, PRS Partners, LLC and RPS Holdings, LLC (respondents) filed an application for a Special Use Permit for an adult establishment with the Raleigh Board of Adjustment (the Board). Respondents sought the Special Use Permit in order to operate a proposed business at 6713 Mt. Herman Road, Raleigh (the subject property). Petitioner Barbara Glover Mangum is the owner of a parcel of land directly adjacent to the subject property, and at this location she operates Triangle Equipment Company, Inc., a retail business selling compact construction, yard, and garden equipment. Petitioners Terry and Deborah Overton own three properties directly adjacent to the subject property, upon which they operate Triangle Coatings, Inc. Petitioner Ms. Van Eure is the owner of the Angus Bam, a prominent Raleigh restaurant, which is not located immedi*642ately adjacent to the subject property, but access to the subject property is along a narrow roadway that passes by the restaurant. A hearing was held by the Board on 9 January 2006, during which petitioners presented evidence concerning the probability of increased traffic, increased water runoff, parking and safety concerns, and adverse secondary effects on their businesses if the Board granted the Special Use Permit.
On 24 February 2006, the Board served notice of its approval of the Special Use Permit application, and petitioners appealed the Board’s decision to Superior Court, Wake County, by Petition for Writ of Certiorari on 24 March 2006. On 13 April 2006, respondents filed a motion to dismiss the petition, asserting that petitioners lacked standing to challenge the Board’s decision pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 160A-388(e2). On 12 September 2006, the trial court denied respondents’ motion to dismiss and reversed the Board’s decision approving the Special Use Permit. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, on 20 November 2007, held that petitioners lacked standing to challenge the Board’s decision and vacated and remanded the decision of the trial court. Petitioners timely petitioned for discretionary review by this Court, and we allowed the petition on 11 June 2008. We now reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.
ANALYSIS
The sole issue before us is whether petitioners have standing to challenge the issuance of the Special Use Permit. As a general matter, the North Carolina Constitution confers standing on those who suffer harm: “All courts shall be open; [and] every person for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person, or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law . ...” N.C. Const, art. I, § 18.
The rationale of [the standing rule] is that only one with a genuine grievance, one personally injured by a statute, can be trusted to battle the issue. “The ‘gist of the question of standing’ is whether the party seeking relief has ‘alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation^] of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.’ ”
Stanley v. Dep’t of Conservation & Dev., 284 N.C. 15, 28, 199 S.E.2d 641, 650 (1973) (quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 99 (1968) (alteration in original) (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962)). It is not necessary that a party demonstrate that injury has already *643occurred, but a showing of “immediate or threatened injury” will suffice for purposes of standing. River Birch Assocs. v. City of Raleigh, 326 N.C. 100, 129, 388 S.E.2d 538, 555 (1990) (citing Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 342 (1977)); see also Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982).
Specifically, in contests concerning zoning decisions, this Court has stated:
The mere fact that one’s proposed lawful use of his own land will diminish the value of adjoining or nearby lands of another does not give to such other person a standing to maintain an action, or other legal proceeding, to prevent such use. If, however, the proposed use is unlawful, as where it is prohibited by a valid zoning ordinance, the owner of adjoining or nearby lands, who will sustain special damage from the proposed use through a reduction in the value of his own property, does have a standing to maintain such proceeding.
Jackson v. Guilford Cty. Bd. of Adjust., 275 N.C. 155, 161, 166 S.E.2d 78, 82 (1969) (citations omitted). Additionally,
[i]f. . . that which purports to be an amendment permitting a use of property forbidden by the original ordinance is, itself, invalid, the prohibition upon the use remains in effect. In that event, the owner of other land, who will be specially damaged by such proposed use, has standing to maintain a proceeding in the courts to prevent it.
Id. at 161, 166 S.E.2d at 83 (citations omitted).1 It is undisputed that defendants’ proposed use of the land is unlawful unless they are issued a Special Use Permit. Moreover, the General Assembly has provided that “[ejvery decision of the board [of adjustment] shall be subject to review by the superior court by proceedings in the nature of certiorari.” N.C.G.S. § 160A-388(e2) (2007) (emphasis added).
In the instant case, the trial court found petitioners had standing based upon the terms of the Raleigh City Code2 and alternatively that *644petitioners had made sufficient allegations to establish “special damages” for purposes of standing through their testimony regarding “increased traffic, increased water runoff, parking, and safety concerns.” The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, finding the allegations and evidence presented inadequate to show the special damages required to challenge the issuance of the permit. Mangum v. Raleigh Bd. of Adjust., 187 N.C. App. 253,-, 652 S.E.2d 731, 736 (2007). We disagree with the conclusion of the Court of Appeals and hold that the allegations and evidence presented by petitioners in regards to the “increased traffic, increased water runoff, parking, and safety concerns,” as well as the secondary adverse effects on petitioners’ businesses, were sufficient special damages to give standing to petitioners to challenge the issuance of the permit.
In our de novo review of a motion to dismiss for lack of standing, we view the allegations as true and the supporting record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Stone v. N.C. Dep’t of Labor, 347 N.C. 473, 477, 495 S.E.2d 711, 713, cert denied, 525 U.S. 1016 (1998). We also note that North Carolina is a notice pleading jurisdiction, and as a general rule, there is no particular formulation that must be included in a complaint or filing in order to invoke jurisdiction or provide notice of the subject of the suit to the opposing party. See Mangum v. Surles, 281 N.C. 91, 99, 187 S.E.2d 697, 702 (1972) (“[I]t is the essence of the Rules of Civil Procedure that decisions be had on the merits and not avoided on the basis of mere technicalities.” (citation omitted)). To deny a party his day in court because of his “imprecision with the pen” would “elevate form over substance” and run contrary to notions of fundamental fairness. See Pyco Supply Co., Inc. v. Am. Centennial Ins. Co., 321 N.C. 435, 443, 364 S.E.2d 380, 385 (1988).
In their petition for writ of certiorari filed in the superior court, petitioners alleged that they either owned property immediately adjacent to or in close proximity to the subject property. While this assertion, in and of itself, is insufficient to grant standing, it does bear some weight on the issue of whether the complaining party has suffered or will suffer special damages distinct from those damages to the public at large. Moreover, petitioners testified during the Board hearing that granting the Special Use Permit would have adverse effects on their property, including problems related to parking, safety, security, stormwater runoff, littering, and noise.
*645For instance, LaMarr Bunn, a licensed landscape architect and licensed real estate broker, testified at the Board hearing on behalf of petitioners in opposition to the permit. He testified about the value of surrounding properties, the large number of 911 calls made concerning similar businesses in Raleigh, his concerns about a proposed sign for the business, and the lack of stormwater retention areas. Petitioner Mangum testified at the Board hearing concerning parking at the subject property. According to her calculations, if the proposed business had full occupancy, each vehicle in the parking lot would need to have transported at least four persons on average.3 She testified that this lack of adequate parking at respondents’ property could result in patrons of the proposed business parking their vehicles at her adjacent site. Moreover, Mangum testified that if even one vehicle parked on Mt. Herman Road, tractor trailers would be unable to bring equipment to her business at night. Mangum expressed concerns over stormwater runoff, as her property was “sitting much lower than the property in question.” She further testified regarding her concerns about safety, litter, vandalism, and other damage to her property. These concerns were based in part on problems Mangum had at a property in South Carolina that is immediately adjacent to an adult establishment.
Petitioner Terry Overton expressed his concerns about security on his adjacent property, stormwater runoff onto his lower-situated property, garbage, and parking overflow. Petitioner Eure testified regarding her safety concerns for her customers and employees stemming from traffic and regarding anticipated secondary adverse effects upon her business. Petitioners’ allegations were reiterated in the petition filed in the superior court.
These allegations and testimony were sufficient to demonstrate special damages to these property owners separate and apart from the damage the community as a whole might suffer. We cannot agree with respondent’s arguments and the dissent’s contention that allegations of vandalism, safety concerns, littering, trespass, and parking overflow from the proposed business to adjacent or nearby lots fail to establish that the value of petitioners’ properties would be adversely affected or that petitioners would be unable to enjoy the *646use of their properties. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals that petitioners lack standing must be reversed.
CONCLUSION
Because petitioners’ allegations and testimony demonstrated the existence of special damages if the Special Use Permit were granted, petitioners have standing to challenge the issuance of the permit, and the Court of Appeals erred in holding otherwise. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for determination of the remaining issues raised by respondents but not addressed by the Court of Appeals.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
. The validity of the Board’s decision is not presented to us in this appeal.
. The trial court wrote: “[T]he Raleigh City Code protects ‘ac[jacent properties’ by requiring the Board to make findings regarding the secondary effects of the proposed Adult Establishment on such adjacent properties. The Code also specifically recognizes that Adult Establishments ‘because of their very nature’ have ‘serious objectionable operational characteristics’ that extend into surrounding neighborhoods.” *644Because we hold that petitioners have standing under our prior case law regardless of the terms of the Raleigh City Code, we express no opinion whether the terms of the Code would be sufficient to grant petitioners standing.
. According to LaMarr Bunn’s testimony, the public space of the proposed building is 6,800 square feet, which requires 140 parking spots and equates to 560 seats in the facility. Thus, the proposed plans would provide one parking spot for every four seats in the establishment. While it was Mangum’s opinion that this was inadequate, the plan is within the standards specified by § 10-2081 of the Raleigh City Code.