Opinion ID: 1800883
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Issue 5: Whether signs erected without a permit upon property, the advertising rights on which had been previously purchased by the Highway Department, are signs lawfully erected under State law, requiring just compensation upon removal

Text: The Commissioner argues that the Highway Department, prior to 1965, had purchased advertising rights under various State statutes where Federal fund incentives were provided to States making such acquisitions. Newman's argument is premised, in part, on the contention that the effective date of statutory control of outdoor advertising in North Dakota was January 19, 1972. In addition, Newman argues that the Board, pursuant to Section 24-17-09, subsection 3, determined that the advertising rights previously acquired by the Highway Department were not necessary. Section 24-17-09, subsection 3, states: 3. The board shall review all rights now acquired by the state of North Dakota for the use and benefit of the state highway department pertaining to the right and control over the erection, location or maintenance of billboards, signs or any form of advertising within six hundred and sixty feet [201.17 meters] from the nearest edge of the right of way of the state highway system, and should the board determine that such rights previously acquired are not necessary to accomplish the purpose of this chapter then such rights shall be vacated pursuant to section 24-01-28. The district court did not deal with this issue. It is clear that if the Highway Department properly acquired advertising rights which legally precluded the landowner from leasing advertising rights to Newman, and the Highway Department's advertising rights were not vacated by the Board pursuant to Section 24-17-09, subsection 3, then signs erected by Newman upon such property were not lawfully erected and Newman is not entitled to compensation. If, however, the advertising rights acquired by the Highway Department were not such as to legally preclude the landowner from entering into a lease agreement with Newman for advertising rights or if the Board properly vacated the advertising rights held by the Highway Department prior to the erection of the sign, then the sign would be lawfully erected and subject to the payment of just compensation upon removal. We find it necessary to remand this issue to the district court for disposition consistent with this opinion.