NM Stat § 67-12-4 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 67 - Highways|Article 12 - Highway Beautification|Section 67-12-4 - Outdoor advertising prohibited; exceptions.

A. Outdoor advertising shall not be erected or maintained except: (1) directional and other official signs and notices authorized or required by law, including, but not limited to, signs and notices pertaining to houses of worship, natural wonders and scenic and historic attractions; (2) signs, displays and devices advertising the sale or lease of property upon which they are located; (3) signs, displays and devices advertising activities conducted on the property upon which they are located, provided that the bisection of a parcel of land by a highway right-of-way acquisition shall not in itself be construed as converting the property into more than one parcel; (4) signs, displays and devices located in areas which are zoned as industrial or commercial under authority of law; (5) signs, displays and devices located within six hundred sixty feet of the nearest edge of the right of way, in unzoned industrial or commercial areas as defined by regulations promulgated by the commission, provided that no area shall be considered to be an unzoned commercial or industrial area unless and until a regulation defining the area as unzoned commercial or industrial is promulgated by the commission; and (6) signs lawfully in existence on October 22, 1965, determined by the commission, subject to any necessary federal approval, to be landmark signs of historic or artistic significance worthy of preservation including signs on farm structures or natural surfaces. B. All outdoor advertising shall conform with standards and specifications, shall bear permits and have paid therefor permit fees, as required by the Highway Beautification Act and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto or authorized thereby, except that permits shall not be required or fees paid for outdoor advertising included in Paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of Subsection A of this section. C. Notwithstanding this section, any outdoor advertising that was lawfully in existence on the effective date of the Highway Beautification Act and has continued to so exist may remain in place until the outdoor advertising is acquired by the commission or condemnation in relation thereto is commenced by the commission, whichever first occurs, but only if and so long as all provisions of Subsection B of this section are complied with. History: 1953 Comp., § 55-11-4, enacted by Laws 1966, ch. 65, § 4; 1967, ch. 140, § 1; 1971, ch. 108, § 2; 1975, ch. 174, § 1; 1975, ch. 193, § 2; 2003, ch. 142, § 87. ANNOTATIONSThe 2003 amendment, effective July 1, 2003, deleted "state highway" preceding "commission" in Paragraph A(6). Regulation deemed proper exercise of police power. — The regulation of outdoor advertising along interstate and primary highways is a reasonable and proper exercise of the police power. Stuckey's Stores, Inc. v. O'Cheskey, 1979-NMSC-060, 93 N.M. 312, 600 P.2d 258, appeal dismissed, 446 U.S. 930, 100 S. Ct. 2145, 64 L. Ed. 2d 783 (1980). Act does not abridge freedom of speech. — The New Mexico Highway Beautification Act, does not abridge freedom of speech in violation of the United States and New Mexico constitutions. Stuckey's Stores, Inc. v. O'Cheskey, 1979-NMSC-060, 93 N.M. 312, 600 P.2d 258, appeal dismissed, 446 U.S. 930, 100 S. Ct. 2145, 64 L. Ed. 2d 783 (1980). Highway Beautification Act meets three-pronged test used to determine whether a time, place and manner restriction is valid: the act's restrictions on plaintiffs' exercise of their freedom of speech is justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, its restrictions on plaintiffs' freedom of speech serve a significant governmental interest and the act leaves open ample alternative channels for communication of the information. Stuckey's Stores, Inc. v. O'Cheskey, 1979-NMSC-060, 93 N.M. 312, 600 P.2d 258, appeal dismissed, 446 U.S. 930, 100 S. Ct. 2145, 64 L. Ed. 2d 783 (1980). Evidence of great business loss needed to rebut presumption. — Where the plaintiffs introduced no evidence that any of their stores, which availed themselves of on-premise or unzoned commercial or industrial area signs after other off-premise signs had been removed, had suffered a great loss of business, they failed to rebut the presumption that the Highway Beautification Act provides adequate means for plaintiffs to exercise their freedom of speech. Stuckey's Stores, Inc. v. O'Cheskey, 1979-NMSC-060, 93 N.M. 312, 600 P.2d 258, appeal dismissed, 446 U.S. 930, 100 S. Ct. 2145, 64 L. Ed. 2d 783 (1980). Outdoor advertising devices erected in violation of act. — Outdoor advertising devices erected after the effective date of the Highway Beautification Act and prior to the 1971 amendments which do not qualify under Subsection A(1) through (4) of this section were erected in violation of the act. Stuckey's Stores, Inc. v. O'Cheskey, 1979-NMSC-060, 93 N.M. 312, 600 P.2d 258, appeal dismissed, 446 U.S. 930, 100 S. Ct. 2145, 64 L. Ed. 2d 783 (1980). Signs are public nuisances when they fail to qualify under this section and when they fail to comply with the Highway Beautification Act's permit provisions. Stuckey's Stores, Inc. v. O'Cheskey, 1979-NMSC-060, 93 N.M. 312, 600 P.2d 258, appeal dismissed, 446 U.S. 930, 100 S. Ct. 2145, 64 L. Ed. 2d 783 (1980). Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 39 Am. Jur. 2d Highways, Streets and Bridges § 288.