The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XXXII
REGULATION OF PROFESSIONS AND OCCUPATIONS

Chapter 479
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 479.15

479.15 Harmony of regulations.—

(1) A zoning board or commission or other public officer or agency may not issue a permit to erect a sign that is prohibited under this chapter or the rules of the department, and the department may not issue a permit for a sign that is prohibited by any other public board, officer, or agency in the lawful exercise of its powers.

(2) A municipality, county, local zoning authority, or other local governmental entity may not remove, or cause to be removed, a lawfully erected sign along any portion of the interstate or federal-aid primary highway system without first paying just compensation for such removal. A local governmental entity may not cause in any way the alteration of a lawfully erected sign located along any portion of the interstate or federal-aid primary highway system without payment of just compensation if such alteration constitutes a taking under state law. The municipality, county, local zoning authority, or other local governmental entity that adopts requirements for such alteration shall pay just compensation to the sign owner if such alteration constitutes a taking under state law. This subsection applies only to a lawfully erected sign the subject matter of which relates to premises other than the premises on which it is located or to merchandise, services, activities, or entertainment not sold, produced, manufactured, or furnished on the premises on which the sign is located. This subsection may not be interpreted as explicit or implicit legislative recognition that alterations do or do not constitute a taking under state law.

(3) It is the express intent of the Legislature to limit the state right-of-way acquisition costs on state and federal roads in eminent domain proceedings, ss. 479.07 and 479.155 notwithstanding. Subject to approval by the Federal Highway Administration, if public acquisition of land upon which is situated a lawfully permitted sign occurs as provided in this chapter, the sign may, at the election of its owner and the department, be relocated or reconstructed adjacent to the new right-of-way and in close proximity to the current site if the sign is not relocated in an area inconsistent with s. 479.024. Such relocation is subject to the requirements in the 1972 agreement between the state and the United States Department of Transportation. The sign owner shall pay all costs associated with relocating or reconstructing a sign under this subsection, and the state or any local government may not reimburse the sign owner for such costs, unless part of such relocation costs is required by federal law. If adjacent property is not available for the relocation, the department is responsible for paying the owner of the sign just compensation for its removal.

(4) For a nonconforming sign, the face of the sign may not be increased in size or height or structurally modified at the point of relocation in a manner inconsistent with the current building codes of the jurisdiction in which the sign is located.

(5) If relocation can be accomplished but is inconsistent with the ordinances of the municipality or county within whose jurisdiction the sign is located, the ordinances of the local government shall prevail if the local government assumes the responsibility to provide the owner of the sign just compensation for its removal. Compensation paid by the local government may not be greater than the compensation required under state or federal law. This section does not impair any agreement or future agreements between a municipality or county and the owner of a sign or signs within the jurisdiction of the municipality or county.

(6) Subsections (3), (4), and (5) do not apply within the jurisdiction of a municipality that is engaged in litigation concerning its sign ordinance on April 23, 1999, and the subsections do not apply to a municipality whose boundaries are identical to the county within which the municipality is located.

(7) This section does not cause a neighboring sign that is already permitted and that is within the spacing requirements established in s. 479.07(9)(a) to become nonconforming.

History.—s. 13, ch. 20446, 1941; s. 5, ch. 67-461; ss. 23, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 1, ch. 74-273; s. 3, ch. 76-168; s. 1, ch. 77-457; ss. 2, 3, ch. 81-318; ss. 15, 25, 26, ch. 84-227; s. 4, ch. 91-429; s. 41, ch. 94-237; s. 65, ch. 99-385; s. 5, ch. 2002-13; s. 16, ch. 2014-215; s. 37, ch. 2014-223.

F.S. 479.15 on Google Scholar

F.S. 479.15 on Casetext

Amendments to 479.15

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 479.15

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 479.15.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

F. HEFFNER, v. J. MURPHY,, 866 F. Supp. 2d 358 (M.D. Pa. 2012)

. . . . § 479.13(a), § 479.15, § 479.3, § 479.5)). . . .

WALKER, v. FLITTON, A. III, J. D. J. O., 364 F. Supp. 2d 503 (M.D. Pa. 2005)

. . . Id. at § 479.15. . . .

LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL v. BURROUGHS,, 522 So. 2d 852 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . As was said in Elliott, 425 F.2d at 1150, which dealt with billboard regulations: Section 479.15 ... . . .

ANR PIPELINE COMPANY, v. IOWA STATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, ANR PIPELINE COMPANY, v. IOWA STATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,, 828 F.2d 465 (8th Cir. 1987)

. . . District Court cannot logically invalidate the Chapter 479 permit program, but leave in place section 479.15 . . . Section 479.15 may be a dead letter, but that does not mean that its subject matter must be treated as . . . Iowa is free to amend Section 479.15 (or to take some other legislative approach) to provide an enforcement . . .

T L MANAGEMENT, INC. M. d b a T L v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,, 497 So. 2d 685 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . Appellant also contends in all six cases that it is entitled to just compensation pursuant to Section 479.15 . . . Sections 479.15(2) and 479.24(1) provide for just compensation for the removal of a “lawful nonconforming . . .

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, v. E. T. LEGG COMPANY,, 472 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . The court cited section 479.15(1), Florida Statutes (1977), which provided that “no zoning board or commission . . .

LAMAR ADVERTISING ASSOCIATES OF EAST FLORIDA, LIMITED, v. CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH,, 450 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . Section 479.15(2), Florida Statutes, provides: No municipality, county, local zoning authority, or other . . . question because the signs there were located on a federal aid primary highway and hence under sections 479.15 . . .

LAMAR- ORLANDO OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, a v. CITY OF ORMOND BEACH, a, 415 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . favor of the appellants that the enforcement remedy sought by the City had been preempted by section 479.15 . . . In addition section 479.15(2) provides: No municipality, county, local zoning authority, or other political . . . Section 479.15(1) provides: No zoning board or commission nor any other public officer or agency shall . . . It relied on the wording of section 479.15(3) which provides: (3) The removal of outdoor advertisements . . . Section 479.15(1) refers to signs “prohibited by” cities or other public bodies, and section 479.15(2 . . .

CITY OF LAKE WALES, v. LAMAR ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION OF LAKELAND, a d b a, 399 So. 2d 981 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . Section 479.15, supra, clearly indicates that Chapter 479 was designed to establish minimum regulations . . . Section 479.15(1), Florida Statutes (1979), provides: No zoning board or commission nor any other public . . . In fact, section 479.15(1) indicates the opposite. . . . Such cannot be the case here, however, since the legislature provided in section 479.15(2), Florida Statutes . . .

In JUST FOR THE FUN OF IT OF TENNESSEE, INC. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF GATLINBURG, v. CHARLES BLALOCK SONS, INC., 7 B.R. 166 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1980)

. . . recorded a judgment in the office of the Register of Deeds against Tennessee, Inc. in the amount of $479.15 . . .

LA POINTE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,, 382 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . Section 479.15(1), Florida Statutes (1977), provides: “no zoning board or commission nor any other public . . .

CITY OF ORMOND BEACH v. LAMAR- ORLANDO,, 1 Fla. Supp. 2d 163 (Volusia Cty. Cir. Ct. 1979)

. . . the owners of such off-premise advertising structures (billboards), violates the provisions of: F.S. 479.15 . . .

CITY OF ORMOND BEACH v. LAMAR- ORLANDO OUTDOOR ADVERTISING,, 49 Fla. Supp. 196 (Volusia Cty. Cir. Ct. 1979)

. . . S. 479.15(2); F. S. 479.24(1); F. . . .

SCAVELLA, v. FERNANDEZ, 371 So. 2d 535 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . In the Elliott case, the court pointed out, at 425 F.2d 1150: “Section 479.15, supra, clearly indicates . . .

WOMETCO ENTERPRISES, v. CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH STEWART PONTIAC CO. v. CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH, 44 Fla. Supp. 72 (Palm Beach Cty. Cir. Ct. 1976)

. . . (V) DOES SECTION 479.15, FLORIDA STATUTES, INVALIDATE THE SIGN CODE? . . . The two sections áppear to be inconsistent as it applies to this case but, even though §479.15(2) was . . . Accordingly, the court finds that section §479.15(2) does not require compensation in accordance with . . . On the Other hand, §479.15(3), in my opinion, clearly provides that the state has pre-empted the area . . . The city need not provide compensation under provisions of §479.15(2), Florida Statutes, with regard . . .

E. B. ELLIOTT ADV. CO. F. v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, a, 425 F.2d 1141 (5th Cir. 1970)

. . . (Emphasis added.) and further § 479.15. . . . Section 479.15, supra, clearly indicates that Chapter 479 was designed to establish minimum regulations . . .