Insider received this feedback from Marnie Christine Cody of Hamlin Cody on yesterday’s Lamar v Clinton Township post.  Marnie Christine Cody and Richard Hamlin operate Hamlin Cody, a California Law firm with expertise in out of home.

I just read your Outdoor Legal article in today’s Billboard Insider.

In California, Richard and I have handled what seems like countless cases like this.  Some we have tried.  More typically, we have settled most long before trial.

California law, expressed in the Outdoor Advertising Act, is very clear:  the requirement by a governmental entity that a lawfully erected display be removed as a condition or prerequisite for the issuance or continued effectiveness of a permit or any approval for any use, structure, development, or activity that is not a display constitutes a compelled removal that requires compensation.

There is an exception, however, and that applies when the permit sought is for construction of a structure on the premises that cannot be built without first physically removing the display.  Property owners and operators alike should be cautious—typically there is no right to compensation when the building plans for new development are in the same location an existing sign.  In instances like that, parties might think they’ll just relocate the sign to an alternate spot on the premises, but in fact, relocation may be denied—without the right to any compensation at all.

[wpforms id=”9787″]

Paid Advertisement