Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 479.24 (2025)
Compensation for signs; eminent domain; exceptions.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
479.24 Compensation for signs; eminent domain; exceptions.—
(1) Just compensation shall be paid by the department upon the department’s acquisition of a lawful conforming or nonconforming sign along any portion of the interstate or federal-aid primary highway system. This section does not apply to a sign that is illegal at the time of its removal. A sign loses its nonconforming status and becomes illegal at such time as it fails to be permitted or maintained in accordance with all applicable laws, rules, ordinances, or regulations other than the provision that makes it nonconforming. A legal nonconforming sign under state law or rule does not lose its nonconforming status solely because it additionally becomes nonconforming under an ordinance or regulation of a local governmental entity passed at a later date. The department shall make every reasonable effort to negotiate the purchase of the signs to avoid litigation and congestion in the courts.
(2) The department is not required to remove any sign under this section if the federal share of the just compensation to be paid upon removal of the sign is not available to make such payment, unless an appropriation by the Legislature for such purpose is made to the department.
(3)(a) The department may use the power of eminent domain when necessary to carry out this chapter.
(b) If eminent domain procedures are instituted, just compensation shall be made pursuant to the state’s eminent domain procedures, chapters 73 and 74.
History.—s. 9, ch. 71-971; s. 5, ch. 75-202; s. 3, ch. 76-168; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 1, ch. 77-457; ss. 2, 3, ch. 81-318; ss. 19, 25, 26, ch. 84-227; s. 4, ch. 91-429; s. 42, ch. 94-237; s. 19, ch. 2014-215; s. 40, ch. 2014-223.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases, 1976–2013 · leading case: Henderson Sign Serv. v. Dept. of Transp., 390 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
Henderson Sign Serv. v. Dept. of Transp., 390 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). “Under these circumstances, this court ruled that summary judgment should not have been entered against the sign owner on his cross-claim for compensation and that compensation for the value of the materials used in the sign was required under Florida Statutes § 479.24, which…”
Walker v. State, Dept. of Transp., 366 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). “§ 131 (g), (n); Fla. Stat. § 479.24 (1); Brazil v. DOA, 347 So.”
Wainwright v. State Dept. of Transp., 488 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). “Wainwright also argued below that if his signs were removed, he should receive compensation therefor under Section 479.24, since the signs were lawful when erected but later became nonconforming due to DOT's changed interpretation of the permitting statute.”
LaPointe Outdoor Advert. v. FLA. DEPT., ETC., 398 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 1981). “4th DCA 1980), in which the court held that the Department of Transportation need not compensate the owner of a billboard sign under section 479.24, Florida Statutes (1977), for requiring the sign's removal for violation of section 479.”
La Pointe Outdoor Advert. v. Florida Dept. of Transp., 382 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). “Regarding compensation, Section 479.24(1), Florida Statutes (1977), provides: (1) Compensation shall be paid upon the removal of all signs lawfully in existence on December 8, 1971 or signs lawfully erected which later become nonconforming.”
Div. Of Admin., State, Dept of Transp. v. Allen, 447 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). “In the instant case, the applicable statute is section 479.24, Florida Statutes (1981), which provides in part: Compensation for removal of signs; eminent domain; exceptions.”
Maverick Media Grp. v. Dept. of Transp., 791 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). “See § 479.24(1), Fla. Stat. (1999)("A sign will lose its nonconforming status and become illegal at such time as it fails to be permitted or maintained in accordance with all applicable laws, rules, ordinances, or regulations other than the provision which makes it nonconforming.”
Food'N Fun, Inc. v. Dep't of Transp., 493 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). “Section 479.24, Florida Statutes, makes clear provision for the appropriate actions to be taken in the event a previously lawful sign becomes nonconforming and it is to that provision that DOT is referred in the event it desires to take further action on this matter.”
LAMAR-ORLANDO, ETC. v. City of Ormond Beach, 415 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). “Section 479.24(1) provides: Compensation shall be paid upon the removal of all signs lawfully in existence on December 8, 1971 or signs lawfully erected which later become nonconforming.”
DEPT. OF TRANSP., STATE v. Heathrow Land & Dev. Corp., 579 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). “The trial court held that Allen was predicated on language in section 479.24, Florida Statutes, as it existed prior to a 1984 amendment and therefore Allen was neither controlling nor persuasive.”
Brazil v. Div. of Admin., State Dep't of Transp., 347 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). “” (Emphasis supplied.) However, DOT’s argument ignores the plain meaning of the remainder of that first section: ‘Compensation for any sign erected or completed after December 8, 1971, shall be limited to the actual replacement value of the materials in such sign.”
Brazil v. Div. Of Admin., State Dot, 347 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). “" (Emphasis supplied.) However, DOT's argument ignores the plain meaning of the remainder of that first section: `Compensation for any sign erected or completed after December 8, 1971, shall be limited to the actual replacement value of the materials in such sign.”
— 479.24(1) — 13 cases
Henderson Sign Serv. v. Dept. of Transp., 390 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). “Under these circumstances, this court ruled that summary judgment should not have been entered against the sign owner on his cross-claim for compensation and that compensation for the value of the materials used in the sign was required under Florida Statutes § 479.24, which…”
La Pointe Outdoor Advert. v. Florida Dept. of Transp., 382 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). “Regarding compensation, Section 479.24(1), Florida Statutes (1977), provides: (1) Compensation shall be paid upon the removal of all signs lawfully in existence on December 8, 1971 or signs lawfully erected which later become nonconforming.”
LaPointe Outdoor Advert. v. FLA. DEPT., ETC., 398 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 1981). “4th DCA 1980), in which the court held that the Department of Transportation need not compensate the owner of a billboard sign under section 479.24, Florida Statutes (1977), for requiring the sign's removal for violation of section 479.”
Maverick Media Grp. v. Dept. of Transp., 791 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). “See § 479.24(1), Fla. Stat. (1999)("A sign will lose its nonconforming status and become illegal at such time as it fails to be permitted or maintained in accordance with all applicable laws, rules, ordinances, or regulations other than the provision which makes it nonconforming.”
LAMAR-ORLANDO, ETC. v. City of Ormond Beach, 415 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). “Section 479.24(1) provides: Compensation shall be paid upon the removal of all signs lawfully in existence on December 8, 1971 or signs lawfully erected which later become nonconforming.”
— 479.24(2) — 3 cases
Walker v. State, Dept. of Transp., 366 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). “§ 131 (g), (n); Fla. Stat. § 479.24 (1); Brazil v. DOA, 347 So.”
City of Lake Wales v. LAMAR ADVER., 399 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).
City of Ormond Beach v. Lamar-Orlando Outdoor Advert., 49 Fla. Supp. 196 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Volusia Cty. 1979).
— 479.24(3)(a) — 1 case
Wainwright v. State Dept. of Transp., 488 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). “Wainwright also argued below that if his signs were removed, he should receive compensation therefor under Section 479.24, since the signs were lawful when erected but later became nonconforming due to DOT's changed interpretation of the permitting statute.”
— 479.24(5) — 1 case
Henderson Sign Serv. v. Dept. of Transp., 390 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). “Under these circumstances, this court ruled that summary judgment should not have been entered against the sign owner on his cross-claim for compensation and that compensation for the value of the materials used in the sign was required under Florida Statutes § 479.24, which…”
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.