Opinion ID: 1181276
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether Plaintiffs' Signs Erected Prior to the 1971 Amendments to the Act were Lawfully Erected Under the Act

Text: In their third point, plaintiffs assert that their signs, which were erected after the effective date of the Act, but prior to the 1971 Amendments to the Act, were lawfully erected under the Act and, therefore, that they are entitled to just compensation in the event that the State condemns them. Section 67-12-6(A)(4) provides that the Commission may acquire all outdoor advertising which was lawfully in existence on the effective date of the ... Act ... and has continued to so exist, or was lawfully erected subsequent to said effective date. Plaintiffs contend that the Legislature intended that all outdoor advertising erected subsequent to the 1966 Act and prior to the 1971 Amendments was lawfully erected under the statute. Defendant counters that plaintiffs' signs which, were erected subsequent to the 1966 Act and which are not within one of the exceptions set forth in § 67-12-4, were not lawfully erected and, therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled to just compensation for the removal of their signs. The district court found that plaintiffs' signs, which were erected subsequent to the effective date of the Act, have at all times since the date of their erection failed to qualify under any of the exceptions set forth in § 67-12-4(A). Permit applications and permit fees were not tendered as required by the Act. The court concluded that these signs are public nuisances because they failed to qualify under § 67-12-4(A) and because they failed to comply with the Act's permit provisions. Section 67-12-4(A) establishes six exceptions to the Act's prohibition against outdoor advertising. These six exceptions are the only signs that may be lawfully erected after 1966. We conclude that those devices erected after the effective date of the Act and prior to the 1971 Amendments which do not qualify under § 67-12-4(A)(1) through (4) were erected in violation of the Act. Therefore, we hold that plaintiffs' signs erected after the Act's effective date and prior to the 1971 Amendments were not lawfully erected.