Florida Statute 479.15 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XXXII
REGULATION OF PROFESSIONS AND OCCUPATIONS

Chapter 479
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING

View Entire Chapter

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 CourtListener

Amendments to 479.15

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 479.15

Total Results: 11 | Sort by: Relevance | Newest First

Copy

LAMAR-ORLANDO, ETC. v. City of Ormond Beach, 415 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).

Cited 13 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal

...mond's Ordinance against appellants' attacks on its constitutionality and its possible preemption by state and federal laws. [3] However, the court ruled in favor of the appellants that the enforcement remedy sought by the City had been preempted by section 479.15(3), Florida Statutes (1979)....

...ederal laws, compensation must be paid appellants. 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. In addition section 479.15(2) provides: No municipality, county, local zoning authority, or other political subdivision shall remove, or cause to be removed, any advertisement or advertising structure without paying compensation in accordance with s....

...The question of whether the state statute (Ch. 479) preempts the field of regulation of signs on highways has been resolved in a similar fashion. [31] The statute contemplates that no zoning ordinance may stand that is less stringent than Chapter 479. Section 479.15(1) provides: *1321 No zoning board or commission nor any other public officer or agency shall permit any advertisement or advertising structure which is prohibited under the provisions of this chapter... . But Chapter 479 clearly contemplates that municipalities may enact stricter rules than those imposed by the state law, because the final clause of section 479.15(1) prohibits the Department of Transportation from permitting any advertisement which is "prohibited by any other public board, officer or agency in the lawful exercise of its or their powers. " Further, section 479.155 expressly provides: The provisions of Ch....

...[32] We agree and the lower court also reached this conclusion. The lower court concluded, however, that Chapter 479 preempts the enforcement of municipal zoning ordinances, although not the passage of stricter regulations. It relied on the wording of section 479.15(3) which provides: (3) The removal of outdoor advertisements or advertising structures adjacent to roads or highways on the federal interstate or primary highway system shall be the sole responsibility of the Department of Transportation. (Emphasis supplied). Other provisions of Chapter 479 clearly contemplate that municipalities have enforcement powers to carry out their own ordinances. Section 479.15(1) refers to signs "prohibited by" cities or other public bodies, and section 479.15(2) provides "No municipality, county, local zoning authority, or other political subdivision shall remove, or cause to be removed, any advertisement ..." (Emphasis supplied)....

...Flashing signs excluding time and temperature signs that do not exceed a 75 square foot area; H. Snipe signs; I. Wind signs; J. Animated signs; K. Signs that are painted to any part of a building. [3] Ch. 479, Fla. Stat. (1979) and 23 U.S.C. § 131. [4] § 479.15(3) provides: The removal of outdoor advertisements or advertising structures adjacent to roads or highways on the federal interstate or primary highway systems shall be the sole responsibility of the Department of Transportation....

Copy

Scavella v. Fernandez, 371 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).

Cited 11 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal

...islation dealing in the Elliott case with the location of billboards, and in Jordan Chapel with the playing of bingo, were not in "conflict" with more stringent Dade County requirements. In the Elliott case, the court pointed out, at 425 F.2d 1150: "Section 479.15, supra, clearly indicates that Chapter 479 was designed to establish minimum regulations for the outdoor advertising business and does not prevent, *537 but rather leaves the way open and encourages stricter regulations by other govern...

Copy

Café Erotica v. Florida Dept. of Transp., 830 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15490, 2002 WL 31373490

historic, cultural, and educational interest. § 479.015, Fla. Stat. (2001). Traffic safety and the appearance

Copy

T & L Mgmt. v. Dept. of Transp., 497 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2279

...e it was the applicant not the agency which made the initial representations upon which the department relied, when originally approving the permits. Appellant also contends in all six cases that it is entitled to just compensation pursuant to Section 479.15(2), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1984). We disagree. Sections 479.15(2) and 479.24(1) provide for just compensation for the removal of a "lawful nonconforming sign." Compensation is only appropriate where signs were initially lawfully constructed and later became non-conforming due to a change in policy of the department....

Copy

Fla. Dept. of Transp. v. Et Legg & Co., 472 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1795, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14461

...inal action of the DOT which ordered the removal of his sign. The DCA held that although the owner had received a building permit for the outdoor advertising sign from the county, the sign violated the spacing requirement of the DOT. The court cited section 479.15(1), Florida Statutes (1977), which provided that "no zoning board or commission nor any other public officer or agency shall permit any advertisement ......

Copy

La Pointe Outdoor Advert. v. Florida Dept. of Transp., 382 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16109

...f Section 479.24(1), Florida Statutes (1977). Because La Pointe's sign was never "lawfully in existence," the Department correctly denied compensation. We also hold that the prior issuance of the Palm Beach County permit does not change this result. Section 479.15(1), Florida Statutes (1977), provides: "no zoning board or commission nor any other public officer or agency shall permit any advertisement or advertising structure which is prohibited under the provisions of this chapter......

Copy

City of Lake Wales v. LAMAR ADVER., 399 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal

...ide of urban areas that is erected with the purpose of its message being read from the main-traveled ways of such system... . Counties and municipalities in Florida may "establish outdoor advertising or sign ordinances." See §§ 125.0102, 166.0425, 479.155, Fla....

...ons which cannot co-exist and the same should be true of the word "conflict" in § 11(5). And it cannot be said that § 479.11(1), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and Dade County Ordinance No. 63-26 are contradictory in the sense that they cannot coexist. Section 479.15, supra, clearly indicates that Chapter 479 was designed to establish minimum regulations for the outdoor advertising business and does not prevent, but rather leaves the way open and encourages stricter regulations by other governmental agencies in the lawful exercise of their power. Id. at 1150 (citations omitted). Section 479.15(1), Florida Statutes (1979), provides: No zoning board or commission nor any other public officer or agency shall permit any advertisement or advertising structure which is prohibited under the provisions of this chapter nor shall the...

...y could not prohibit billboards. There is nothing in chapter 479, however, which explicitly states or even implies that the legislature intended to prevent counties and municipalities from regulating billboards within their boundaries. *989 In fact, section 479.15(1) indicates the opposite....

...highway funds under a more stringent state or local regulation, it would occur only where just compensation is not paid for removal of billboards existing on October 22, 1965. Such cannot be the case here, however, since the legislature provided in section 479.15(2), Florida Statutes (1979), that no municipality can remove a billboard lawfully in existence on December 8, 1971, without paying compensation....

Copy

McDonald's Corp. v. Dept. of Transp., 535 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2663, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5405, 1988 WL 130475

be used in conjunction with that activity. Section 479.015 is a statement of the legislative intent behind

Copy

Flamingo Lake RV Resort, Inc. v. Dept. of Transp., 599 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6208, 1992 WL 114652

contrary to the legislative intent contained in Section 479.015, Florida Statutes (1989). Moreover, we know

Copy

Laborers'intern, L. 478 v. Burroughs, 522 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).

Cited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal

...Neither formulation of the rule applies in a situation like this one in which the identical anti-discrimination requirements are simply imposed by the county upon a wider and broader class of entities than the state. As was said in Elliott, 425 F.2d at 1150, which dealt with billboard regulations: Section 479.15 ......

Copy

Lamar Advert. Assocs. of East Fla., Ltd. v. City of Daytona Beach, 450 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12767

...Section 479.24(1), Florida Statutes, provides that: Compensation shall be paid upon the removal of all signs lawfully in existence on Dec. 8, 1971 or signs lawfully erected which later become nonconforming. *1150 The signs in question were lawfully in existence on December 8, 1971. Section 479.15(2), Florida Statutes, provides: No municipality, county, local zoning authority, or other political subdivision shall remove, or cause to be removed, any advertisement or advertising structure without paying compensation in accordance with s....

...of information by billboards. [5] U.S. Const. Amend. V, XIV; Art. I, §§ 2, 9, Fla. Const. [6] This court in Lamar-Orlando did not resolve this question because the signs there were located on a federal aid primary highway and hence under sections 479.15(2) and 479.24(1), Florida Statutes, compensation was required....

This Florida statute resource is curated by Graham W. Syfert, Esq., a Jacksonville, Florida personal injury and workers' compensation attorney. For legal consultation, call 904-383-7448.