Court Opinion

ID: 9737669
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:31:53.079288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:00.662820
License: Public Domain

Weaver, C.J.
I concur in the result only of the majority opinion. I am concerned that this Court has failed to give due consideration to the private property interests related to billboard ownership and leases.
The rooftop billboards at issue were constructed in 1955 and 1968. They, and the leases for their use, preexisted the 1975 ordinance and became nonconforming after the ordinance’s enactment. “A prior nonconforming use is a vested right in the use of particular property that does not conform to zoning restrictions, but is protected because it lawfully existed before the zoning regulation’s effective date.” Heath Twp v Sall, 442 Mich 434, 439; 502 NW2d 627 *42(1993). “Though the ordinance be reasonable, it cannot operate to oust the property owner of his vested right.” Dusdal v City of Warren, 387 Mich 354, 359-360; 196 NW2d 778 (1972). Specifically, in Wolverine Sign Works v Bloomfield Hills, 279 Mich 205, 208; 271 NW 823 (1937), this Court held that while billboards were subject to reasonable regulation, a city may not destroy, by a billboard maintenance ordinance, the property right in a lease use. In other words, Wolverine recognized that billboard regulation could run afoul of the prohibition against taking private property without just compensation.
In Adams Outdoor Advertising v East Lansing, 439 Mich 209; 483 NW2d 38 (1992) (Adams I), this Court held that the City of East Lansing had the power to “forcibly terminate nonconforming billboards and signs over a reasonable period of time.” Id. at 212 (emphasis added). The implication of the “reasonable period of time” proviso of this holding is that, on its face, the ordinance effected a taking. The Court remanded to consider the compensating effect of amortization. However, the effect of amortization would not change the nature of the underlying governmental action.