Can a structure used as a sign avoid building safety regulations? Hodgson v. Farmington City Explained

In Hodgson v. Farmington City, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a building used primarily as a sign could escape regulation under building safety codes. The case provides important guidance on administrative appeals and the marshaling requirement for challenging agency factual findings.

Background and Facts

The Fadel family owned a barn built in 1959 that served dual purposes as a barn and sign base. After a 1972 fire destroyed most of the structure, the family rebuilt it but was prohibited from replacing the sign under the Utah Outdoor Advertising Act. However, the Utah Supreme Court in Rock Manor Trust v. State Road Commission upheld their right to continue the nonconforming use as a sign. In 2012, Farmington City building official Eric Miller determined the barn violated multiple provisions of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (UCADB) and issued a notice requiring repair or demolition.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented several issues: whether the barn qualified as a “structure” subject to the UCADB despite its use as a sign, whether the Rock Manor decision created res judicata preventing application of building codes, and whether the administrative board’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals rejected the Fadels’ argument that Rock Manor conclusively determined the barn was only a sign. The court explained that a structure can be classified as both a sign and a building subject to safety regulations. The Rock Manor decision addressed only the nonconforming use rights under advertising law, not building safety requirements. The court applied the arbitrary, capricious, or illegal standard to review the administrative decision and found the board’s determination that the barn exhibited 13 dangerous conditions was supported by substantial evidence.

Practice Implications

This decision demonstrates that dual-use structures remain subject to building safety codes regardless of their primary function. For appellate practitioners, the case reinforces the critical importance of properly marshaling evidence when challenging administrative factual findings—appellants cannot simply point to contradictory evidence but must present all supporting evidence and explain why it is insufficient.