West Washington Properties v. Department of Transportation
210 Cal. App. 4th 1136
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- West Washington owns an 8,000 square‑foot wallscape on a building in Los Angeles visible from I‑10; it allegedly dates to 1984 and was first installed in connection with the 1984 Olympics.
- Caltrans determined in 2006 that the wallscape violated the Outdoor Advertising Act for lacking a permit and exceeding size limits; a notice of violation was issued in November 2006 after no prior action.
- West Washington challenged the violation, and the administrative hearing record included stipulations that the wallscape exceeded 1,200 square feet, was within 660 feet of I‑10, and had no Caltrans permit; Caltrans presented evidence showing no permit on file.
- The administrative law judge found a violation but concluded equitable estoppel and laches barred enforcement; the director partly adopted this view, limiting removal in light of a nuisance per se ruling in earlier cases.
- West Washington filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus and later a suit for inverse condemnation; the trial court rejected equitable defenses and sustained demurrers, leading to this appeal.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding that section 5216.1 does not render a wallscape lawful, that Caltrans rebutted the presumption of lawfully erected, and that equitable estoppel and laches do not bar enforcement or support a takings claim in these circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether section 5216.1 creates a rebuttable presumption of lawful erection. | West Washington argues wallscape is lawfully erected under 5216.1. | Caltrans contends 5216.1 merely shifts the burden; display not lawfully erected. | Presumption rebutted; statute shifts burden but does not render lawful. |
| Whether equitable estoppel bars Caltrans from enforcing the Act. | West Washington relies on inaction and profit expectations. | Caltrans not estopped by government inaction given public policy. | Estoppel not justified; public policy against enforcing unlawful displays prevails. |
| Whether laches bars enforcement of the Act. | West Washington contends delay should bar enforcement. | State interest in enforcing public safety overrides delay. | Laches not applicable; public policy supports enforcement. |
| Whether the inverse condemnation claim is viable. | Equitable estoppel could ground compensation. | Removal of unlawful display is police power; not a taking. | No taking; inverse condemnation properly barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ryan Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Dept. of Public Works, 39 Cal.App.3d 804 (Cal. App. 1974) (estoppel against public agency; removal of unlawful signs)
- Outdoor Media Group v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.App.4th 1067 (Cal. App. 1993) (nuisance per se; estoppel not available against agency)
- Mansell v. City of Long Beach, 3 Cal.3d 462 (Cal. 1970) (exceptional case; government estoppel sparingly applied)
- Feduniak v. California Coastal Com., 148 Cal.App.4th 1346 (Cal. App. 2007) (inactivity alone not reasonable reliance; public policy)
- Golden Gate Water Ski Club v. County of Contra Costa, 165 Cal.App.4th 249 (Cal. App. 2008) (no estoppel to defeat public land-use restrictions; exceptional circumstances required)
- Traverso v. People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation, 6 Cal.4th 1152 (Cal. 1993) (billboard owner may have due process rights; not controlling taking here)
- People ex rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. v. Ryan Outdoor Advertising, 39 Cal.App.3d 804 (Cal. App. 1974) (estoppel cannot defeat statute; nuisance per se)
- People ex rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. v. Outdoor Media Group, 13 Cal.App.4th 1067 (Cal. App. 1993) (agencies may enforce public safety policies)