SB 497

This bill revises the standards governing the treatment of outdoor advertising signs that do not conform to local ordinances (nonconforming signs) and that are affected by certain transportation-related public projects, prohibits the use of the “unit rule” in the condemnation of signs, and limits the use of certain appraisals as the basis for a jurisdictional offer.

Under current law, if a highway project of the Department of Transportation causes the realignment of a nonconforming sign, the realignment does not affect the sign’s nonconforming status under the ordinance. “Realignment” is defined as relocation on the same site. Also under current law, if DOT proposes the realignment of a sign in connection with a highway project, DOT must notify the municipality or county that adopted the ordinance to which the nonconforming sign does not conform of the sign’s proposed realignment. The municipality or county may then petition DOT to condemn the sign instead of realigning the sign, but must pay DOT for certain costs of condemnation if DOT succeeds in condemning the sign.

This bill expands the types of projects covered and replaces the realignment provision with a repositioning provision. Under this bill, if a state or local transportation project for which DOT has allocated state or federal funds (covered project) causes the removal or reduces the visibility of a nonconforming sign, the sign’s nonconforming status under the ordinance is not affected if the sign is repositioned within the political subdivision in a manner approved by the political subdivision. Repositioning under the bill means raising, lowering, rotating, or adjusting the sign or moving the sign to another location. In general, the bill requires that the characteristics of a nonconforming sign be the same after repositioning as before repositioning. If a sign is repositioned, the agency undertaking the covered project must pay to the sign owner the actual replacement costs incurred by the sign owner in repositioning the sign. The bill requires that replacement costs be determined by using the moving cost agreement for the relocation of outdoor advertising signs.

Also under this bill, the agency that undertakes a covered project proposes the repositioning a nonconforming sign in connection with the project, that agency must notify the municipality or county that adopted the ordinance to which the sign does not conform of the sign’s proposed repositioning. The municipality or county may then petition the agency to condemn the sign instead of repositioning, but must pay the agency for certain costs of condemnation if the agency succeeds in condemning the sign.

This bill also prohibits the use of the “unit rule” in the condemnation of signs. In general, for properties owned by multiple parties, the “unit rule” limits the liability of a condemnor to the fair market value of the property taken, notwithstanding the potential loss in property value to the separate parties. This bill provides that, for signs, a condemnor must pay values for 1) the value of the sign and any lease related to the sign, 2) the loss in value to other signs of the owner caused by the removal of the sign, and 3) with regard to the owner of the real property on which the sign is located, the loss of the right to erect and maintain the sign. The bill specifically provides that these amounts are not limited to the fair market value of the property as an undivided whole.

This bill also prohibits a condemnor from using as an appraisal upon which a jurisdictional offer is based any appraisal in which the amount of the owner’s appraised loss is less than 85 percent or more than 115 percent of the amount of the owner’s loss provided in the jurisdictional offer.