D'Egidio v. City of Santa Clarita
4 Cal. App. 5th 515
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs (the D’Egidios) own a parcel bordering State Route 14 that contained a billboard erected by a prior owner; the billboard was leased for general commercial advertising after 1987 and Caltrans permits were obtained.
- The property was unincorporated Los Angeles County when purchased (1984); the City of Santa Clarita incorporated in 1987 and annexed the property in 1990; Santa Clarita adopted increasingly restrictive sign regulations and in 2014 required removal of pre‑1990 off‑site signs within five years.
- In 2007 City first asserted the billboard was illegal for lacking proper local permits; after failed negotiations City in 2014 demanded removal and the D’Egidios sued for declaratory relief.
- City cross‑complained, alleging the billboard was not lawfully erected (because a 1987 change from a subdivision sales sign to a general outdoor advertising sign violated the then‑applicable Los Angeles County Code), and sought nuisance abatement and attorney fees.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for City: holding (1) state Outdoor Advertising Act (§ 5200 et seq.) does not preempt County/City regulations that are more restrictive, (2) the billboard became unlawful upon the 1987 change of use, (3) equitable estoppel and laches did not bar enforcement, and (4) City was entitled to attorney fees. Plaintiffs appeal; judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Bus. & Prof. Code § 5270 preempt local billboard ordinances in unincorporated areas? | § 5270’s exclusivity forbids county/city regulation of billboards in unincorporated areas. | The Act’s other provisions (e.g., §§ 5227, 5230, 5231, 5229, 5366) authorize local regulation and establish only state minimums. | § 5270 does not preempt more restrictive local ordinances; local regulation stands. |
| Was the billboard “lawfully erected” after the 1987 change from subdivision sales sign to general advertising? | Billboard was lawful when originally erected; change did not defeat its lawful status. | § 5216.1 treats a post‑erection modification that makes a display illegal as removing its "lawfully erected" status. | Change of use in 1987 rendered the billboard unlawful under County Code; not “lawfully erected.” |
| Did the rebuttable presumption of legality (§ 5216.1) preclude summary judgment? | The billboard existed >5 years without written notice; presumption of lawful erection applies. | The presumption is rebuttable; City met its burden by showing the 1987 use change made the display illegal. | Presumption was rebutted by undisputed evidence; summary judgment appropriate. |
| Do equitable estoppel or laches bar City’s enforcement after delay? | City’s long delay caused prejudice (lost evidence, reliance); estoppel/laches preclude enforcement. | No evidence of detrimental reliance or prejudice; billboard remained an ongoing nuisance. | No triable issue of prejudice or reliance; estoppel and laches do not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 55 Cal.4th 783 (discussing statutory interpretation principles)
- Viacom Outdoor, Inc. v. City of Arcata, 140 Cal.App.4th 230 (construing Outdoor Advertising Act and local regulation)
- West Washington Properties, LLC v. Department of Transportation, 210 Cal.App.4th 1136 (equitable estoppel standard against government)
- City of Long Beach v. Mansell, 3 Cal.3d 462 (limits on applying estoppel against government)
- Steinhart v. County of Los Angeles, 47 Cal.4th 1298 (elements of equitable estoppel)
- Hurwitz v. City of Orange, 122 Cal.App.4th 835 (pretextual nuisance findings and takings concerns)
- Miller v. Eisenhower Medical Center, 27 Cal.3d 614 (laches requires delay plus prejudice)