Florida Statute 479.105 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XXXII
REGULATION OF PROFESSIONS AND OCCUPATIONS

Chapter 479
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 479.105

479.105 Signs erected or maintained without required permit; removal.—

(1) A sign that is located adjacent to the right-of-way of any highway on the State Highway System outside an incorporated area or adjacent to the right-of-way on any portion of the interstate or federal-aid primary highway system, which sign was erected, operated, or maintained without the permit required by s. 479.07(1) having been issued by the department, is declared to be a public nuisance and a private nuisance and shall be removed as provided in this section.

(a) Upon a determination by the department that a sign is in violation of s. 479.07(1), the department shall prominently post on the sign, or as close to the sign as possible for a location in which the sign is not easily accessible, a notice stating that the sign is illegal and must be removed within 30 days after the date on which the notice was posted. The department shall, concurrently with and in addition to posting the notice on the sign, provide a written notice to the owner of the sign, the advertiser displayed on the sign, or the owner of the property, stating that the sign is illegal and must be permanently removed within the 30-day period specified on the posted notice. The written notice shall further state that a hearing may be requested and that the request must be filed with the department within 30 days after receipt of the written notice. However, the filing of a request for a hearing will not stay the removal of the sign.

(b) If, pursuant to the notice provided, the sign is not removed by the owner of the sign, the advertiser displayed on the sign, or the owner of the property within the prescribed period, the department shall immediately remove the sign without further notice; and, for that purpose, the employees, agents, or independent contractors of the department may enter upon private property without incurring any liability for so entering.

(c) However, the department may issue a permit for a sign, as a conforming or nonconforming sign, if the sign owner demonstrates to the department one of the following:

1. If the sign meets the current requirements of this chapter for a sign permit, the sign owner may submit the required application package and receive a permit as a conforming sign, upon payment of all applicable fees.

2. If the sign does not meet the current requirements of this chapter for a sign permit and has never been exempt from the requirement that a permit be obtained, the sign owner may receive a permit as a nonconforming sign if the department determines that the sign is not located on state right-of-way and is not a safety hazard, and if the sign owner pays a penalty fee of $300 and all pertinent fees required by this chapter, including annual permit renewal fees payable since the date of the erection of the sign, and attaches to the permit application package documentation that demonstrates that:

a. The sign has been unpermitted, structurally unchanged, and continuously maintained at the same location for 7 years or more;

b. During the initial 7 years in which the sign has been subject to the jurisdiction of the department, the sign would have met the criteria established in this chapter which were in effect at that time for issuance of a permit; and

c. The department has not initiated a notice of violation or taken other action to remove the sign during the initial 7-year period in which the sign has been subject to the jurisdiction of the department.

(d) This subsection does not cause a neighboring sign that is permitted and that is within the spacing requirements under s. 479.07(9)(a) to become nonconforming.

(e) For purposes of this subsection, a notice to the sign owner, when required, constitutes sufficient notice. Notice is not required to be provided to the lessee, advertiser, or the owner of the real property on which the sign is located.

(f) If, after a hearing, it is determined that a sign has been wrongfully or erroneously removed pursuant to this subsection, the department, at the sign owner’s discretion, shall either pay just compensation to the owner of the sign or reerect the sign in kind at the expense of the department.

(2)(a) If a sign is under construction and the department determines that a permit has not been issued for the sign as required under this chapter, the department may require that all work on the sign cease until the sign owner shows that the sign does not violate this chapter. The order to cease work shall be prominently posted on the sign structure, and further notice is not required. The failure of a sign owner or her or his agents to immediately comply with the order subjects the sign to prompt removal by the department.

(b) For the purposes of this subsection only, a sign is under construction when it is in any phase of initial construction before the attachment and display of the advertising message in final position for viewing by the traveling public. A sign that is undergoing routine maintenance or change of the advertising message only is not considered to be under construction for the purposes of this subsection.

(3) The cost of removing a sign by the department or an independent contractor shall be assessed against the owner of the sign by the department.

History.—ss. 10, 26, ch. 84-227; s. 4, ch. 91-429; s. 64, ch. 95-257; s. 3, ch. 96-201; s. 1121, ch. 97-103; s. 12, ch. 2014-215; s. 33, ch. 2014-223.

F.S. 479.105 on Google Scholar

F.S. 479.105 on Casetext

Amendments to 479.105

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 479.105

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 479.105.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 479.105

Total Results: 20

Wells Fargo Equipment Finance, Inc. v. Bacjet, LLC

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2017-06-21

Citation: 221 So. 3d 671, 2017 WL 2665067, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 8978

Snippet: for the purpose of securing its loan. See id. at 479, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (citation omitted). Because the lender

Miami-Dade County ex rel. Walthour v. Malibu Lodging Investments, LLC

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2011-06-01

Citation: 64 So. 3d 716, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8042, 2011 WL 2135594

Snippet: County does not have standing pursuant to section 479.105(1)[, Florida Statutes].3 Moreover, it is also likely

Hatfield v. AutoNation, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2005-12-21

Citation: 915 So. 2d 1236, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 20065, 2005 WL 3479637

Snippet: Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 479, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). If the defendant's

Banco Inversion v. Celtic Finance Corp.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2005-08-03

Citation: 907 So. 2d 704, 2005 WL 1812888

Snippet: Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 479, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). In Ben M. Hogan

Bambu v. EI Dupont De Nemours & Co., Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2004-05-26

Citation: 881 So. 2d 565

Snippet: [Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985)], "the plaintiff

Aluminator Trailers, LLC v. Loadmaster Aluminum Boat Trailers, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2002-11-08

Citation: 832 So. 2d 822, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 16173, 2002 WL 31487273

Snippet: of minimum contacts, Burger King, 471 U.S. at 479, 105 S.Ct. 2174, due process in this case is not satisfied

Café Erotica v. Florida Dept. of Transp.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2002-10-23

Citation: 830 So. 2d 181, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15490, 2002 WL 31373490

Snippet: See id. Except for exemptions under sections 479.105(1)(e)[1] and 479.16, Florida Statutes (2001), section

Hartcourt Companies, Inc. v. Hogue

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2002-06-07

Citation: 817 So. 2d 1067, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8177, 2002 WL 1232943

Snippet: the forum. Id. (citing Burger King, 471 U.S. at 479, 105 S.Ct. 2174). The underlying test for sufficiency

CHRISTUS ST. JOSEPH'S v. Witt Biomedical Corp.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2002-01-18

Citation: 805 So. 2d 1050, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 287

Snippet: contacts within the forum. Burger King, 471 U.S. at 479, 105 S.Ct. 2174. In the instant case, the parties'

RLS BUS. VENTURES v. Second Chance Wholesale, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2001-04-11

Citation: 784 So. 2d 1194, 2001 WL 356227

Snippet: Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985), holds that

deMCO TECHNO., INC. v. CC ENGINEERED CASTINGS, INC.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2000-10-18

Citation: 769 So. 2d 1128, 2000 WL 1531991

Snippet: established minimum contacts within the forum." Id. at 479, 105 S.Ct. 2174. Florida courts recognize that when

Mowrey Elevator Co. of Florida v. Automated Integration, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1999-10-29

Citation: 745 So. 2d 1046, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 14329, 1999 WL 980145

Snippet: Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 479, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985), whether a Florida

Demby v. English

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1995-10-27

Citation: 667 So. 2d 350, 1995 WL 627450

Snippet: 2d 686 (1964). See McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479, 105 S.Ct. 2787, 86 L.Ed.2d 384 (1985) (holding that

O'MALLEY v. St. Thomas University, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1992-04-14

Citation: 599 So. 2d 999, 1992 WL 73800

Snippet: Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985)). Appellants

Lee v. State Department of Transportation

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1992-04-08

Citation: 596 So. 2d 802, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4257, 1992 WL 69052

Snippet: to remove the signs in accordance with Section 479.105, Florida Statutes (1989). Appellant’s exceptions

Boyd v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1991-01-08

Citation: 578 So. 2d 718, 1991 WL 1496

Snippet: crime. See Sedima S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 105 S.Ct. 3292, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985); United States

Ben M. Hogan Co., Inc. v. QDA Inv. Corp.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1990-10-02

Citation: 570 So. 2d 1349, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7426, 1990 WL 143687

Snippet: contacts within the forum." Burger King, 471 U.S. at 479, 105 S.Ct. at 2185, 85 L.Ed.2d at 545. In this case

Hancock Advertising v. Dept. of Transp.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1989-09-26

Citation: 549 So. 2d 1086, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2285, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5309, 1989 WL 110924

Snippet: *1088 sign should be removed pursuant to Section 479.105(1), Fla. Stat. (1985). We do not agree. Contrary

Pellerito Foods, Inc. v. American Conveyors Corp.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1989-04-25

Citation: 542 So. 2d 426, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1049, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2261, 1989 WL 39493

Snippet: contacts within the forum." Burger King, 471 U.S. at 479, 105 S.Ct. at 2185, 85 L.Ed.2d at 545. Pellerito was

McDonald's Corp. v. Dept. of Transp.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1988-12-09

Citation: 535 So. 2d 323, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2663, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5405, 1988 WL 130475

Snippet: establishment sign was erected in violation of section 479.105 and section 479.02(1), Florida Statutes (1987)