Metropolitan Government of Nashville And Davidson County, Tennessee v. Board of Zoning Appeals Of Nashville And Davidson County, Tennessee, M2016-01732-COA-R3-CV

CBS Outdoor applied in 2012 for permits to convert two existing static (non-digital) billboards to digital displays on property in Nashville; Metro denied the permits based on sign/lighting distance rules.
The BZA reversed and issued the permits; Metro sought judicial review by writ of certiorari.
After procedural rounds on standing (affirmed on prior appeals), the chancery court on remand held the BZA erred and vacated the permits because the proposed digital billboards violated Metro Code distance rules.
CBS argued the billboards were protected as pre-existing nonconforming uses under the grandfather clause of Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-7-208, so the municipal distance/spacing restrictions could not bar conversion.
Metro contended the challenged ordinance is a lighting/safety regulation (sign regulation), not a zoning change, so § 13-7-208’s grandfather protections do not apply.
The Court of Appeals agreed with Metro, holding the ordinance is a lighting/safety regulation (not tantamount to zoning) and affirmed the chancery court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Metro’s sign provision (spacing/distance/height limits on digital billboards) is a "zoning" regulation subject to Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-7-208 grandfather protection	CBS: The ordinance regulates size and distance and thus alters zoning restrictions; § 13-7-208 should protect preexisting billboard uses from the new ban	Metro: The provision is a lighting/sign-safety regulation (exercise of police power), not a zoning change; grandfather clause does not apply	The court held the provision is a lighting/safety regulation, not tantamount to zoning, so § 13-7-208’s grandfather protection does not apply

Cherokee Country Club, Inc. v. City of Knoxville, 152 S.W.3d 466 (Tenn. 2004) (adopts a "substantial effect" test to determine whether an ordinance is tantamount to zoning)
SNPCO, Inc. v. City of Jefferson City, 363 S.W.3d 467 (Tenn. 2012) (refines the two-part substantial-effects test: relation to zoning plan and substantial effect on property use)
Smith County Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. Hiwassee Vill. Mobile Home Park, LLC, 304 S.W.3d 302 (Tenn. 2010) (grandfather clause construed strictly against claimant)
Outdoor W. of Tenn., Inc. v. City of Johnson City, 39 S.W.3d 131 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (burden on landowner to prove nonconforming use fits § 13-7-208)
Hoover, Inc. v. Metro. Bd. of Zoning Appeals for Davidson County, 955 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997) (writ of certiorari is the review mechanism for BZA decisions)
Sanifill of Tenn., Inc. v. Tenn. Solid Waste Disposal Control Bd., 907 S.W.2d 807 (Tenn. 1995) (construction/application of statutes and ordinances to facts is a question of law)