Title: Town of Front Royal v. Martin Media

State: virginia

Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

Present:  Carrico, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, and 
Lemons, JJ. 
 
TOWN OF FRONT ROYAL, ET AL. 
 
OPINION BY 
v.  Record No. 001010 
JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. 
 
March 2, 2001 
MARTIN MEDIA 
 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WARREN COUNTY 
John E. Wetsel, Jr., Judge 
 
This appeal arises out of a landowner’s petition, filed in 
the trial court, for a writ of certiorari to review a decision 
by a local board of zoning appeals and the concurrent motion of 
the locality for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, 
filed in the same court, against the landowner.  The trial court 
consolidated the cases, and subsequently entered judgment for 
the landowner.  We awarded an appeal to the locality and 
accepted assignments of cross-error raised by the landowner. 
BACKGROUND 
The parties stipulated to the material facts that form the 
basis of the trial court’s recitation of findings in its final 
order.  At issue is a two-sided wooden billboard on a parcel of 
land owned by Martin Media in the Town of Front Royal (the 
Town).  Although the precise date of the billboard’s 
construction is unknown, an examination of aerial photographs of 
the Town reveals that the billboard was constructed sometime 
between 1951 and 1966. 
Section 16.3 of the 1951 Town Code permitted billboards to 
be constructed on appropriately zoned parcels “[w]hen not 
exceeding fourteen feet in height above curb level, with a clear 
space of not less than three feet between the bottom of the 
. . . billboard and the ground.”  Martin Media’s billboard is 
approximately twenty-four feet in height.  Although there is no 
evidence that the Town granted a variance for the billboard to 
exceed the height restriction of the 1951 Town Code, the Town 
concedes that its “records as to zoning variances and sign 
permits are incomplete.” 
In 1978, the Town adopted the current zoning ordinance 
prohibiting the construction of any billboards in the Town.1  
This ordinance contains several “grandfathering clauses” 
implicated by the issues raised in this appeal.  Section 601, 
addressing nonconforming uses, provides that “[i]f at the time 
of enactment of this Ordinance, any . . . structure legally 
utilized in a manner or for a purpose which does not conform to 
                     
1The 1978 zoning ordinance superseded a prior zoning 
ordinance adopted in 1970.  Similarly, the 1951 Town Code was 
superseded in 1965.  Neither party contends that provisions of 
these interim zoning ordinances are relevant to the issues 
raised in this appeal.  Rather, the parties agree that, at the 
time of the billboard’s construction, billboards of not more 
than fourteen feet in height were permitted to be constructed on 
properly zoned property within the Town, and that at some point 
in time thereafter billboards, regardless of height, were no 
longer permitted to be constructed within the Town. 
 
 
2
the provisions of this Ordinance, such manner of use or purpose 
may be continued as herein provided.”  Section 606 provides that 
“[l]awful uses of land, which at the effective date of this 
Ordinance . . . become non-conforming, may be continued by the 
present or any subsequent owner so long as it remains otherwise 
lawful.”  Section 607 provides that structures which “become 
non-conforming by reason of restrictions on . . . height . . . 
may continue to be used so long as such structure . . . remains 
otherwise lawful.”  A further provision of the 1978 zoning 
ordinance repeals all prior inconsistent ordinances. 
In March 1998, Martin Media, which had obtained the 
necessary permits to do so, removed old light fixtures extending 
perpendicularly from the top of the billboard and replaced them 
with new light fixtures extending in the same manner from the 
bottom of the billboard.  The installation of the new light 
fixtures was approved by the Town’s inspection office.  However, 
on July 2, 1998, the Town’s zoning administrator advised Martin 
Media that as a result of the installation of the new light 
fixtures, the billboard violates the 1978 zoning ordinance.  The 
zoning administrator concluded that the billboard is 
nonconforming because the new light fixtures extend into the 
public right-of-way adjoining Martin Media’s property.  The 
zoning administrator directed Martin Media to remove the new 
light fixtures by August 3, 1998. 
 
3
Martin Media filed an appeal to the Town’s board of zoning 
appeals, challenging the zoning administrator’s interpretation 
of the zoning ordinance and his directive to remove the new 
light fixtures.  Martin Media contended that the replacement of 
the old light fixtures was a permissible repair of the 
billboard.  At its September 21, 1998 meeting, the board of 
zoning appeals denied the appeal on the ground that there was 
insufficient evidence that the old light fixtures also had 
projected into the public right-of-way, as Martin Media 
maintained.  The board also noted that it appeared that the old 
light fixtures had been non-functional for a sufficient period 
of time to constitute abandonment by Martin Media of its use of 
the billboard as a lighted sign.  On October 21, 1998, Martin 
Media filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the trial 
court, seeking a review of the decision of the board of zoning 
appeals. 
On October 28, 1998, the Town filed a motion for 
declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, seeking a 
declaration that the billboard is an unlawful nonconforming use 
and an injunction requiring Martin Media to remove the billboard 
for that reason.  The Town contended that the billboard has 
never been a lawful use because when it was constructed it 
exceeded the height restriction for billboards in the then 
applicable Town Code.  Thus, the Town further contended that the 
 
4
billboard is not entitled to the protection of the 
grandfathering clauses of the 1978 zoning ordinance as a lawful 
nonconforming use. 
The cases were consolidated, the parties stipulated to the 
material facts as recited above, and the trial court conducted a 
hearing in both cases on February 16, 2000.  In its opinion and 
final order entered on February 22, 2000, the trial court noted 
that it was Martin Media’s burden to prove that its billboard 
was a lawful nonconforming use of the property.  The trial court 
further noted that when the billboard was initially constructed, 
the 1951 Town Code permitted the construction of billboards, but 
limited their height to fourteen feet above curb level.  
Accordingly, the trial court concluded that, because no evidence 
established that a variance was ever granted by the Town to 
permit the twenty-four foot height of this billboard, “it was 
not a conforming structure, but it was a permitted use” at that 
time.  The trial court further concluded that under the 1978 
zoning ordinance a billboard is a structure under the 
ordinance’s definition of “Structure, Outdoor Advertising.”  
Having concluded that the billboard was a “permitted use” when 
initially constructed, the trial court determined that this use 
was subject to the grandfathering clauses of the 1978 zoning 
ordinance.  Upon those conclusions, the trial court ruled that 
“the encroachment onto the state’s right of way by the overhang 
 
5
of [Martin Media’s light fixtures] is an incidental use of 
property incident to the grandfathered use, and it may continue 
as a nonconforming use.”  Accordingly, the trial court reversed 
the decision of the board of zoning appeals requiring Martin 
Media to remove the new light fixtures from the billboard. 
With regard to the Town’s declaratory judgment action, the 
trial court determined that the Town’s effort to have the 
billboard declared an unlawful nonconforming use is an improper 
effort to enforce the 1951 Town Code.  The trial court reasoned 
that although the billboard, when originally constructed, 
exceeded the fourteen foot height restriction of that Code, 
“[t]he Town’s right to prosecute violations of the 1951 Code was 
lost when that Code was superseded by the Town’s subsequent 
zoning ordinances.”  The trial court further reasoned that the 
continued lawfulness of the billboard is governed by the 
provisions of the 1978 zoning ordinance under which it became 
grandfathered because it was a lawful nonconforming use when 
that ordinance was enacted.  Accordingly, the trial court denied 
the Town’s motion for an injunction requiring Martin Media to 
remove the billboard. 
The Town noted an appeal, assigning error essentially to 
the trial court’s ruling that the billboard is a lawful 
nonconforming use and, thus, subject to the grandfathering 
clauses of the 1978 zoning ordinance, and, if that ruling is not 
 
6
in error, to the further ruling that the installation of the new 
light fixtures is a proper incidental use of the billboard.  
Martin Media assigned cross-error, Rule 5:18(b), essentially 
challenging the trial court’s determination that it has the 
burden of proving a lawful nonconforming use of its billboard, 
that the billboard is not subject to a variance, and that the 
billboard constitutes a “structure” under the 1978 zoning 
ordinance. 
DISCUSSION 
Notwithstanding the various assignments of error, it is 
readily apparent that the dispositive issue raised by this 
appeal is whether the trial court erred in ruling that although 
Martin Media’s billboard was a nonconforming use when originally 
constructed, because billboards in excess of fourteen feet in 
height were prohibited, it became a lawful nonconforming use 
when the 1978 zoning ordinance prohibited the construction of 
all billboards regardless of height.  However, to reach that 
issue, we must first address the cross-error raised by Martin 
Media contending that, given the parties’ stipulations, the 
trial court erred in ruling that Martin Media has the burden of 
proving that its billboard was a lawful use prior to the 
enactment of the 1978 zoning ordinance’s ban on the construction 
of any billboards within the Town.  Martin Media maintains that, 
if this contention is correct, then the Town failed to meet its 
 
7
burden to prove that the billboard is a nonconforming use of its 
land, ending the inquiry into whether the Town may enforce the 
current prohibition of the 1978 zoning ordinance against Martin 
Media’s previously existing billboard. 
It is the settled law of this Commonwealth that for a prior 
use of land which violates a newly enacted zoning restriction to 
be considered a lawful nonconforming use, the use must have been 
“a lawful use existing on the effective date of the zoning 
restriction.”  Knowlton v. Browning-Ferris Industries of 
Virginia, Inc., 220 Va. 571, 572 n.1, 260 S.E.2d 232, 234 n.1 
(1979); C. & C. Inc. v. Semple, 207 Va. 438, 439 n.1, 150 S.E.2d 
536, 537 n.1 (1966) (both quoting 2 E. C. Yokley, Zoning Law and 
Practice § 16-2, at 212 (3rd ed. 1965))(emphasis added in 
Knowlton).  Martin Media acknowledges that in Knowlton we held 
that “in civil cases . . . the land user has both the burden of 
initially producing evidence tending to prove a lawful 
nonconforming use and the burden of persuading the factfinder.”  
220 Va. at 574, 260 S.E.2d at 235.  Martin Media contends, 
however, that because the parties stipulated that the Town’s 
records of variances granted prior to 1978 are “incomplete,” the 
Town is unable to establish “that [the land user’s] use of [its] 
land is not a permitted use” under the current zoning ordinance 
as a necessary prerequisite to requiring Martin Media to produce 
 
8
evidence to show that the use of its land, though nonconforming, 
is otherwise lawful.  Id.  We disagree. 
Martin Media is correct that the party challenging a use of 
land, in this case the Town, “has the initial burden of 
producing evidence to show the uses permitted in the zoning 
district in which the land is located and that the use of the 
land is not a permitted use.”  Masterson v. Board of Zoning 
Appeals of the City of Virginia Beach, 233 Va. 37, 47, 353 
S.E.2d 727, 734 (1987).  However, we have never held that this 
burden extended beyond establishing that a current zoning 
restriction on the land prohibits the use in question.  Id.  
Here, it is not disputed that under the current zoning 
ordinance, Martin Media’s use of its land for the billboard in 
question is prohibited and, accordingly, it became Martin 
Media’s burden to show that this use is a lawful nonconforming 
use. 
Nor are we persuaded by Martin Media’s further contention 
that it should not be required “to locate and produce records 
that validate its use where such records have been lost, 
destroyed or are otherwise incomplete.”  The evidence does not 
disclose why the Town’s records are incomplete.  However, it is 
self-evident that the landowner, not the locality, is in the 
better position to know “about the nature and extent of the use 
of the land,” Knowlton, 220 Va. at 574, 260 S.E.2d at 236, and, 
 
9
thus, it is the landowner who must bear the primary 
responsibility for ensuring that the use of the land is 
permitted under the law.  While we may assume that a locality 
will make every effort to maintain accurate and complete records 
regarding variances granted to landowners, there is obviously an 
equal, if not greater responsibility on the individual 
landowner, who generally originates a request for a variance, to 
maintain his own records with respect to granted variances for 
the use of his land.  The failure of the locality to have 
complete records will not remove the landowner’s burden to 
produce his own records showing that he, or his predecessor in 
interest, obtained a necessary variance for a nonconforming use 
of his land.  Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not 
err in placing the burden on Martin Media to establish that its 
billboard was a lawful nonconforming use of its land.2
We now turn to the trial court’s ruling that the 1978 
zoning ordinance’s ban on the construction of billboards within 
the Town acted as a de facto repeal of the height restriction on 
billboards in the 1951 Town Code and, thus, eliminated the 
Town’s ability to enforce that restriction against previously 
                     
2Similarly, we reject Martin Media’s contention that the 
trial court erred in finding that no variance had been granted 
for the billboard.  Martin Media produced no evidence on this 
point and was not entitled to any presumption in favor of 
finding that a variance had been granted. 
 
10
nonconforming billboards.  In that regard, the issue is not 
whether the billboard in question is subject to an enforcement 
of the 1951 Town Code.  Clearly it is not, because that Code is 
no longer in effect.  Rather, the issue is whether Martin 
Media’s billboard is presently a lawful use under the 1978 
zoning ordinance.  Specifically, because the 1978 zoning 
ordinance prohibits all billboards within the Town, Martin 
Media’s billboard is a lawful use only if it is subject to a 
grandfathering provision of that ordinance. 
The record is clear that at the time of its construction 
Martin Media’s billboard was not lawful because it exceeded the 
height restriction placed on that type of structure by the 1951 
Town Code, and there is no evidence that a variance was granted 
permitting this billboard to exceed that height restriction.  
Martin Media’s argument, which the trial court appeared to 
accept, that there is a distinction between billboards as a 
lawful category of use and individual billboards which violate a 
height restriction placed on that category of use is without 
merit.  Either a particular use is permitted under the 
applicable zoning restriction or it is not.  Here, the only 
conclusion permitted by the evidence is that at the time of its 
construction and at all times thereafter prior to the effective 
date of the 1978 zoning ordinance, Martin Media’s twenty-four 
 
11
foot high billboard was not a lawful use of the land on which it 
was constructed. 
Accordingly, the grandfathering provision of Section 606 of 
the 1978 zoning ordinance has no application to Martin Media’s 
billboard because the billboard was not a “[l]awful use[] of 
land, which at the effective date of [the] Ordinance . . . 
[became] non-conforming.”  Rather, the use was already 
unlawfully nonconforming prior to the enactment of the 1978 
zoning ordinance and continues to be so. 
Similarly, Section 607 has no application to the facts of 
this case because Martin Media’s billboard did not become 
nonconforming as a result of a restriction on its height in the 
1978 zoning ordinance, but was nonconforming when constructed 
because of the height restriction existing at that time.  It is 
of no moment that the 1978 zoning ordinance may have effectively 
repealed that restriction by banning all billboards regardless 
of height.  The undeniable fact, based upon the record, remains 
that this twenty-four foot high billboard was from its inception 
an unlawful use of Martin Media’s land and that no variance to 
permit that use has been proven to exist. 
We hold that the trial court erred in ruling that Martin 
Media’s billboard is a lawful nonconforming use of land under 
the 1978 zoning ordinance and that the Town is not entitled to 
the injunctive relief it seeks.  Accordingly, the Town may 
 
12
require Martin Media to remove the billboard.  This being the 
case, we need not consider the remaining assignments of error 
and cross-error related to the collateral issues whether the new 
light fixtures are a proper incidental use of the billboard and 
whether the billboard remains a “structure” for purposes of 
applying the 1978 zoning ordinance. 
CONCLUSION 
For these reasons, the judgment of the trial court will be 
reversed and the case remanded for entry of appropriate 
injunctive relief directing Martin Media to remove the unlawful 
billboard from its property. 
Reversed and remanded. 
 
13