Utah Supreme Court
Does denying billboard relocation require city council approval? Outfront Media v. SLC Corp. Explained
Summary
Outfront Media’s billboard lease expired and it sought to relocate to an adjacent lot, but Salt Lake City denied the request while approving Corner Property’s request to relocate to the lot CBS was vacating. CBS challenged the denial as illegal because the mayor acted without city council approval, arguing that denial constituted eminent domain requiring legislative approval under Utah Code § 78B-6-504(2)(b).
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
Background and Facts
Outfront Media owned a billboard adjacent to Interstate 15 but faced lease expiration. When the company requested relocation to an adjacent lot, Salt Lake City denied the request. The same day, the City approved Corner Property’s request to relocate its billboard to the lot CBS was vacating. CBS challenged both decisions, arguing the mayor lacked authority to deny billboard relocations without city council approval.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Utah Code § 10-9a-513’s Billboard Compensation Statute requires compliance with eminent domain procedural requirements when municipalities deny billboard relocation requests. CBS argued that because the statute provides cities are “considered to have initiated the acquisition of a billboard structure by eminent domain” upon denial, the mayor needed city council approval under Utah Code § 78B-6-504(2)(b).
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court rejected CBS’s interpretation, focusing on the word “considered” in the Billboard Compensation Statute. The court held that municipalities are only “considered” to have initiated acquisition for compensation purposes, not that they actually exercise eminent domain powers. The statute creates a standalone compensation scheme without incorporating eminent domain’s procedural requirements. The court applied canons of independent meaning and meaningful variation, noting that other statutes granting eminent domain authority use different language like “may acquire” or “may exercise.”
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that compensation-triggering municipal actions don’t necessarily require full procedural compliance with related statutory schemes. Practitioners should carefully analyze statutory language to determine whether compensation statutes operate independently or incorporate broader procedural frameworks. The ruling also demonstrates that municipal executives can implement informal policies consistent with written ordinances when making land use decisions.
Case Details
Case Name
Outfront Media v. SLC Corp.
Citation
2017 UT 74
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20160150
Date Decided
October 23, 2017
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
The Billboard Compensation Statute creates a standalone compensation scheme that does not incorporate the procedural requirements of eminent domain statutes, so a municipality’s denial of billboard relocation requests does not require legislative approval.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law and statutory interpretation; substantial evidence for arbitrary and capricious determinations
Practice Tip
When challenging municipal land use decisions, carefully analyze whether compensation statutes create standalone schemes or incorporate broader procedural requirements from related statutory frameworks.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.