Summary
The Supreme Court of Georgia held that a city sign ordinance requiring removal of nonconforming signs without compensation effects an unconstitutional taking of private property under the Georgia Constitution. Because the removal provision was the core of the ordinance's regulatory scheme, the entire ordinance was void. The court reaffirmed that valid police power regulation cannot override constitutional protections requiring just compensation for property taken or damaged for public purposes.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the City of Albany's sign ordinance, which requires removal of nonconforming signs without compensation, effects a taking of private property without just and adequate compensation in violation of the Georgia Constitution.
Holdings
- The enforcement of the removal provision of the ordinance results in the destruction of a substantial part of a lawful enterprise, effects a taking of private property without just and adequate compensation, and is void under the Georgia Constitution. The removal provision is the core of the ordinance's general purpose, so the whole ordinance must fall.
Key quotations
“Except as otherwise provided in the Paragraph, private property shall not be taken or damaged for public purposes without just and adequate compensation being first paid.” (at 47)
“The Outdoor Advertising Control Act (Ga. L. 1964, p. 128) is unconstitutional because it fails to require payment for taking private property for public purposes, and it was not error to overrule the general demurrers of the State Highway Department to the petition of property owners seeking to prevent enforcement of that Act and alleging its unconstitutionality.” (at 47)
“Because the enforcement of the removal provision of the ordinance will result in the destruction of a substantial part of a lawful enterprise, it effects a taking of private property without just and adequate compensation. Hence, it is void under our Constitution.” (at 47)
“The portions of the ordinance which are declared unconstitutional are ... so vital and connected with the general scheme of the ordinance that the whole ordinance must fall.” (at 47)
Factual background
The City of Albany adopted a comprehensive sign ordinance that governs various signs, imposes annual charges, and requires removal of nonconforming signs within stated periods without compensation. Lamar Advertising owned approximately 200 sign faces within the city, many of which would be nonconforming. Lamar also applied for and received permits to erect two new signs that complied with the prior ordinance but would not conform to the new one. The city obtained an injunction prohibiting Lamar from erecting the two signs. Lamar appealed, challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance.
Procedural history
The City of Albany adopted a comprehensive sign ordinance. Before its effective date, Lamar Advertising owned signs that would be nonconforming and had permits for two new signs. The city obtained an injunction prohibiting Lamar from erecting the two signs. Lamar appealed, raising constitutional claims. The Supreme Court of Georgia addressed only the takings issue.
Remand instructions
Vacate the injunction.