A. The municipality may acquire by purchase or condemnation private property for the removal of nonconforming uses and structures. The elimination of such nonconforming uses and structures in a zoned district is for a public purpose. Nothing in an ordinance or regulation authorized by this article shall affect existing property or the right to its continued use for the purpose used at the time the ordinance or regulation takes effect, nor to any reasonable repairs or alterations in buildings or property used for such existing purpose.
B. A municipality shall not require as a condition for a permit or for any approval, or otherwise cause, an owner or possessor of property to waive the right to continue an existing nonconforming outdoor advertising use or structure without acquiring the use or structure by purchase or condemnation and paying just compensation unless the municipality, at its option, allows the use or structure to be relocated to a comparable site in the municipality with the same or a similar zoning classification, or to another site in the municipality acceptable to both the municipality and the owner of the use or structure, and the use or structure is relocated to the other site. The municipality shall pay for relocating the outdoor advertising use or structure including the cost of removing and constructing the new use or structure that is at least the same size and height. This subsection does not apply to municipal rezoning of property at the request of the property owner.
C. A municipality must issue a citation and file an action involving an outdoor advertising use or structure zoning or sign code violation within two years after discovering the violation. Such an action shall initially be filed with a court having jurisdiction to impose all penalties sought by the action and that jurisdiction is necessary for effective filing. Only the superior court has jurisdiction to order removal, abatement, reconfiguration or relocation of an outdoor advertising use or structure. Notwithstanding any other law, a municipality shall not consider each day that an outdoor advertising use or structure is illegally erected, constructed, reconstructed, altered or maintained as a separate offense unless the violation constitutes an immediate threat to the health and safety of the general public.
Notes of Decisions
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 105 P.3d 1163 (Ariz. 2005).
· cites it 117× “1999), the court of appeals held that § 9-462.02 applied retroactively to prohibit the City from enforcing its 3 ordinance against some, but not all, of the billboards in question.”
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 181 P.3d 219 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 34× “Discovery Standard under A.R.S. § 9-462.02(0 ¶ 4 Clear Channel argues the trial court erred by determining that the two-year limitations period set forth in § 9-462.”
Outdoor Sys., Inc. v. City of Mesa, 819 P.2d 44 (Ariz. 1991).
· cites it 68× “Do the City of Mesa and City of Tucson sign codes, in requiring the removal of preexisting nonconforming billboards before a landowner may develop or change the use of the property on which the sign is located, impermissibly remove nonconforming uses without purchase or…”
City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., 32 P.3d 31 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 23× “After the work was completed, the City filed a declaratory action against OSI, Aaron Rents, and Newport Associates contending that OSI’s work exceeded the permissible scope of A.R.S. § 9-462.02 and the Ordinance. The City requested that OSI be required to remove the billboard.”
Gannett Outdoor Co. v. City of Mesa, 768 P.2d 191 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 29× “In this appeal, we consider the issue of whether the replacement of an existing multi-pole billboard structure with a new mono-pole structure of the same dimensions constitutes a “reasonable alteration” of non-conforming property within the meaning of A.R.S. § 9-462.02. We…”
City of Tucson v. Whiteco Metrocom, Inc., 983 P.2d 759 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 22× “The City also claimed some of the billboards were impermissibly expanded, relocated, or changed, and thereby lost the protection of the nonconforming use statute, A.R.S. § 9-462.02. The trial court granted Whiteco’s motion for partial summary judgment, declaring that § 9-462.”
Circle K Corp. v. City of Mesa, 803 P.2d 457 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 34× “(Maxicraft) raise two challenges to the ordinance: 1) *466 whether the ordinance conflicts with A.R.S. § 9-462.02, and is therefore void; and 2) whether the ordinance allows an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation.”
Stagecoach Trails Mhc, L.L.C. v. City of Benson, 307 P.3d 989 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 8× “In Outdoor Systems, our supreme court considered whether “existing property,” as that term is used in § 9-462.02, related to individual nonconforming billboards or to the entire parcel on which they were located.”
Whiteco Outdoor Advert. v. City of Tucson, 972 P.2d 647 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 15× “Over the City’s opposition, the trial court later entered judgment for Whiteco, declaring that its billboards illuminated with bottom-mounted lighting fixtures at the time the City adopted the 1987 OLC “are valid prior non-conforming uses protected under A.”
City of Scottsdale v. Scottsdale Associated Merchants, Inc., 583 P.2d 891 (Ariz. 1978).
· cites it 10× “The appellee challenged the validity of Ordinance 823, contending that it was in conflict with the state statute covering the subject, A.R.S. § 9-462.02. * The appellee points out that the ordinance in question does not provide for compensation for removal of the nonconforming…”
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 78 P.3d 1056 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 11× “6 ¶ 11 At oral argument, the City asserted, contrary to suggestions and statements in its briefs on appeal, that there is no ambiguity or lack of clarity in § 9-462.02(0 that requires resorting to rules of statutory interpretation.”
Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson, 295 P.3d 943 (Ariz. 2013).
· cites it 6× “A key issue is whether the entire park, or only an individual space therein, is a nonconforming use, exempt under A.R.S. § 9-462.02(A) from complying with provisions of the City of Benson’s zoning code.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-462.02(0) — 3 cases
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 181 P.3d 219 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“Discovery Standard under A.R.S. § 9-462.02(0 ¶ 4 Clear Channel argues the trial court erred by determining that the two-year limitations period set forth in § 9-462.”
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 78 P.3d 1056 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
“6 ¶ 11 At oral argument, the City asserted, contrary to suggestions and statements in its briefs on appeal, that there is no ambiguity or lack of clarity in § 9-462.02(0 that requires resorting to rules of statutory interpretation.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-462.02(A) — 13 cases
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 181 P.3d 219 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“Discovery Standard under A.R.S. § 9-462.02(0 ¶ 4 Clear Channel argues the trial court erred by determining that the two-year limitations period set forth in § 9-462.”
City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., 32 P.3d 31 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“After the work was completed, the City filed a declaratory action against OSI, Aaron Rents, and Newport Associates contending that OSI’s work exceeded the permissible scope of A.R.S. § 9-462.02 and the Ordinance. The City requested that OSI be required to remove the billboard.”
Stagecoach Trails Mhc, L.L.C. v. City of Benson, 307 P.3d 989 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
“In Outdoor Systems, our supreme court considered whether “existing property,” as that term is used in § 9-462.02, related to individual nonconforming billboards or to the entire parcel on which they were located.”
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 105 P.3d 1163 (Ariz. 2005).
“1999), the court of appeals held that § 9-462.02 applied retroactively to prohibit the City from enforcing its 3 ordinance against some, but not all, of the billboards in question.”
Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson, 295 P.3d 943 (Ariz. 2013).
“A key issue is whether the entire park, or only an individual space therein, is a nonconforming use, exempt under A.R.S. § 9-462.02(A) from complying with provisions of the City of Benson’s zoning code.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-462.02(B) — 2 cases
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 105 P.3d 1163 (Ariz. 2005).
“1999), the court of appeals held that § 9-462.02 applied retroactively to prohibit the City from enforcing its 3 ordinance against some, but not all, of the billboards in question.”
City of Tucson v. Whiteco Metrocom, Inc., 983 P.2d 759 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“The City also claimed some of the billboards were impermissibly expanded, relocated, or changed, and thereby lost the protection of the nonconforming use statute, A.R.S. § 9-462.02. The trial court granted Whiteco’s motion for partial summary judgment, declaring that § 9-462.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-462.02(C) — 6 cases
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 105 P.3d 1163 (Ariz. 2005).
“1999), the court of appeals held that § 9-462.02 applied retroactively to prohibit the City from enforcing its 3 ordinance against some, but not all, of the billboards in question.”
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 181 P.3d 219 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“Discovery Standard under A.R.S. § 9-462.02(0 ¶ 4 Clear Channel argues the trial court erred by determining that the two-year limitations period set forth in § 9-462.”
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 78 P.3d 1056 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
“6 ¶ 11 At oral argument, the City asserted, contrary to suggestions and statements in its briefs on appeal, that there is no ambiguity or lack of clarity in § 9-462.02(0 that requires resorting to rules of statutory interpretation.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.