N.M. Stat. Ann. § 67-12-4
A. Outdoor advertising shall not be erected or maintained except:
History: 1953 Comp., § 55-11-4, enacted by Laws 1966, ch. 65, § 4; 1967, ch. 140, § 1; 1971, ch. 108, § 2; 1975, ch. 174, § 1; 1975, ch. 193, § 2; 2003, ch. 142, § 87.
The 2003 amendment, effective July 1, 2003, deleted "state highway" preceding "commission" in Paragraph A(6).
Regulation deemed proper exercise of police power. — The regulation of outdoor advertising along interstate and primary highways is a reasonable and proper exercise of the police power. Stuckey's Stores, Inc. v. O'Cheskey, 1979-NMSC-060, 93 N.M. 312, 600 P.2d 258, appeal dismissed, 446 U.S. 930, 100 S. Ct. 2145, 64 L. Ed. 2d 783 (1980).
Act does not abridge freedom of speech. — The New Mexico Highway Beautification Act, does not abridge freedom of speech in violation of the United States and New Mexico constitutions. Stuckey's Stores, Inc. v. O'Cheskey, 1979-NMSC-060, 93 N.M. 312, 600 P.2d 258, appeal dismissed, 446 U.S. 930, 100 S. Ct. 2145, 64 L. Ed. 2d 783 (1980).
Highway Beautification Act meets three-pronged test used to determine whether a time, place and manner restriction is valid: the act's restrictions on plaintiffs' exercise of their freedom of speech is justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, its restrictions on plaintiffs' freedom of speech serve a significant governmental interest and the act leaves open ample alternative channels for communication of the information. Stuckey's Stores, Inc. v. O'Cheskey, 1979-NMSC-060, 93 N.M. 312, 600 P.2d 258, appeal dismissed, 446 U.S. 930, 100 S. Ct. 2145, 64 L. Ed. 2d 783 (1980).
Evidence of great business loss needed to rebut presumption. — Where the plaintiffs introduced no evidence that any of their stores, which availed themselves of on-premise or unzoned commercial or industrial area signs after other off-premise signs had been removed, had suffered a great loss of business, they failed to rebut the presumption that the Highway Beautification Act provides adequate means for plaintiffs to exercise their freedom of speech. Stuckey's Stores, Inc. v. O'Cheskey, 1979-NMSC-060, 93 N.M. 312, 600 P.2d 258, appeal dismissed, 446 U.S. 930, 100 S. Ct. 2145, 64 L. Ed. 2d 783 (1980).
Outdoor advertising devices erected in violation of act. — Outdoor advertising devices erected after the effective date of the Highway Beautification Act and prior to the 1971 amendments which do not qualify under Subsection A(1) through (4) of this section were erected in violation of the act. Stuckey's Stores, Inc. v. O'Cheskey, 1979-NMSC-060, 93 N.M. 312, 600 P.2d 258, appeal dismissed, 446 U.S. 930, 100 S. Ct. 2145, 64 L. Ed. 2d 783 (1980).
Signs are public nuisances when they fail to qualify under this section and when they fail to comply with the Highway Beautification Act's permit provisions. Stuckey's Stores, Inc. v. O'Cheskey, 1979-NMSC-060, 93 N.M. 312, 600 P.2d 258, appeal dismissed, 446 U.S. 930, 100 S. Ct. 2145, 64 L. Ed. 2d 783 (1980).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 39 Am. Jur. 2d Highways, Streets and Bridges § 288.