|
|
NON-CONFORMING USE: SIGNS
Loduca v. ZHB of the Borough of Danville, 45 D& C 4th, 414 (Montour C.C.P., February 23, 2000)
A non-conforming sign is entitled to the same rights as any non-conforming use. The right to continue the non-conforming use "runs with the land" and is not confined to any one user. In this case a sign was located on a tract being used as a service station which was a permitted use. The sign was non-conforming in size. The owner closed the service station and considered a number of alternate permitted uses. The Borough, six months after the closing of the service station, held that the non-conforming sign had been abandoned. The court reversed the Borough's decision reiterating the general proposition that even where an ordinance creates a presumption of abandonment after a certain period (here 6 months) the specifics of the particular case must be considered to determine the owner's intent to abandon. Even if the particular "use" of the property had been abandoned, the court held that the evidence did not support abandonment of the non-conforming sign. The court further recognized that a mere change in the sign "face" does not support a claim of abandonment.
DISCLAIMER:
This site is designed to provide summary review of selected Pennsylvania and Federal Court decisions related to land use and land use controls. The information contained herein, although produced by professionals, is not intended to render any legal service. Nor should the materials herein be utilized as a substitute for professional services. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the service of an attorney or other professional should be sought. DCED makes no representations, warranties or guarantees as to the accuracy, completeness or suitability of the information provided herein.
Back to Top |
