Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7 <br />sign could remain in place and that the new owner could <br />change the copy on it, holding: "Generalty, ... such <br />truthful commercial speech may not be prohibited on <br />the basis of its content alone." This case casts doubt on <br />any regulation that prohibits cha~tging the copy of a <br />nonconforming sign. <br />Several other cases support a sign owner's right to change <br />the face or copy of a sign without interference by a <br />governing body: <br />• Budget !nn of Daplvre, Inc. r. City of Daphne, <br />2000 WL 184245 (Ala). The Court struck down <br />as unconstitutional a provision similar to that in <br />the 6171age of ,Nyack case, based on a First <br />Amendment analysis and the substantive due <br />process clause of the 14'" Amendment. <br />• ~t /otel 6 Operating Ltd Parmerrlrip r. City of <br />Flagstaff, 195 AZ 569.991 P.2d 272 (1999). The <br />Court ruled that the owners' proposed sign face <br />chances were reasonable alterations to their legal <br />nonconforming signs and, therefore, would not <br />trigger a duty to bring the sign into conformance. <br />-~ <br />I.. -~ ~ <br />Rogers i,. Zaring Bd. Of Adjustment of the <br />Village ofXidgervood, 309 N.J. Super. 630, 707 <br />A.2d 1090 (App.Div. 1998), aff'd, 158 N.J. 11, <br />726 A.2d 258 (N.J. 1999). The Court held that <br />a change of sign to indicate a new owner of a <br />legal nonconforming building does not cause the <br />sign to lose its protected status. <br />Ray's Stazeline A4arker, Gac. v. Toirn of Pelham, <br />140 N.H. 139, 665 A.2d 1068 (1995). The Court <br />ruled that replacing the plastic face panels of <br />two on-premise signs with face panels <br />advertising a new tenant dougltitut franchise <br />would not result in an impermissible change or <br />extension ofthe store's legal nonconforming use, <br />as lettering or copy changes to the existing signs <br />would not affect the signs' dimensions. <br />C.F Royal Food Systevts. Inc. r. ;1dissami <br />HiglnvaJ, and Ti ansp. Com Sr. 876 S. W. 2d 38 <br />(h4o.App. 1994). The Court held that an <br />advertising message on a Bien which fal Is within <br />the nonconforming use exemption under the <br />state Billboard Act can be changed to reflect a <br />change in ownership without rendering the <br /> <br />S~Bnline 40.pmtl 9 ~ 1 ~ 3R3I2~09, 1245 PM <br />lecnnotogtcal advances have resulted in spectacular electronic displays, such as this computer-controlled video dis- <br />play in Las Vegas. The sophisticated hardware now available makes messages extremely readable, with minimal <br />energy use, on displays of virtually any size. <br />