procedural posture of this case is such that we are convinced a substantial right will be lost without immediate review. See United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Simpson, 126 N.C. App. 393, 395, 485 S.E.2d 337, 339 (explaining that this Court will review interlocutory order if appellant demonstrates “the order adversely affects a substantial right which appellant may lose ,if not granted an appeal before final judgment”), disc. review denied, 347 N.C. 141, 492 S.E.2d 37 (1997). High Rock no longer owns the property for which the permit is sought. It, therefore, has no reason to pursue the permit on remand from the trial court. Moreover, High Rock’s continued pursuit of the permit could well be dismissed as moot. See Messer v. Town of Chapel Hill, 346 N.C. 259, 261, 485 S.E.2d 269, 270 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Because of these circumstances, it is
holding that an overbreadth challenge to a child pornography law was rendered moot by amendment to the statute holding that a third party has authority to consent to a search if the third party is a coinhabitant holding plaintiffs sale of property to third party rendered moot his challenge to constitutionality of rezoning decision holding that the repeal of a statute renders moot the question of its constitutionality and that the constitutionality of the new act does not arise on this appeal and    will be decided if and when it is presented holding that a commerce clausebased challenge to florida banking statutes was rendered moot by amendments to the law