When it comes to the subject of copy and face changes on signs - and how much control regulators should have over the same - there are many complexities. The federal courts have been clear in restricting sign codes to content-neutral regulations of time, place and manner of display, but what about regulating copy and face changes? The following case studies have bearing on this dynamic issue.

First, in Kevin Gray-East Coast Auto Body v. Village of Nyack, 566 N.Y.S.2d 795 (1991), a local business changed hands and the new owner wanted to reflect this with a new name for the business; a village ordinance deemed this a change of copy sufficient to require the nonconforming sign to conform before the copy change would be allowed. The Court, however, found that the sign could remain in place and that the new owner could change the copy on it, holding: "Generally, … such truthful commercial speech may not be prohibited on the basis of its content alone." This case casts doubt on any regulation that prohibits changing the copy of a nonconforming sign.

Other cases which support a sign owner's right to change the face or copy of a sign without interference by a governing body include:

Court Case	Result
Budget Inn of Daphne, Inc. v. City of Daphne, 789 So.2d 154 (2002).	The Court struck down as unconstitutional a provision similar to that in the Village of Nyack case, based on a First Amendment analysis and the substantive due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Motel 6 Operating Ltd. Partnership v. City of Flagstaff, 195 AZ 569, 991 P.2d 272 (1999).	The Court ruled that the owners' proposed sign face changes were reasonable alterations to their legal nonconforming signs and, therefore, would not trigger a duty to bring the sign into conformance.
Rogers v. Zoning Bd. Of Adjustment of the Village of Ridgewood, 309 N.J. Super. 630, 707 A.2d 1090 (App.Div. 1998), aff'd, 158 N.J. 11, 726 A.2d 258 (N.J. 1999).	The Court held that a change of sign to indicate a new owner of a legal nonconforming building does not cause the sign to lose its protected status.
Ray's Stateline Market, Inc. v. Town of Pelham, 140 N.H. 139, 665 A.2d 1068 (1995).	The Court ruled that replacing the plastic face panels of two on-premise signs with face panels advertising a new tenant doughnut franchise would not result in an impermissible change or extension of the store's legal nonconforming use, as lettering or copy changes to the existing signs would not affect the signs' dimensions.
C.F. Royal Food Systems, Inc. v. Missouri Highway and Transportation Com'n, 876 S.W. 2d 38 (Mo.App. 1994).	The Court held that an advertising message on a sign which falls within the nonconforming use exemption under the state Billboard Act can be changed to reflect a change in ownership without rendering the modified sign a new erection, and thereby removing it from extension.

Additional Considerations for Electronic Message Centers

Electronic message centers have a long, complicated history that provides important context for understanding the difficulties that plague regulations of these signs today. Time and temperature units, developed in the 1950s and '60s, were the first major technically feasible innovation in electronic signs. The technology available at that time made the full range of copy changes impossible, due to radio interference and vibration problems.

During that time, the federal government's rules and regulations restricted the use of electronic message centers on the primary and interstate highway system to displays of time, temperature, and "public service messages." Over time, as the technology advanced, the federal government began to research the signs and their impacts on traffic safety. The newer signs allowed for changing messages, and some of these newer signs had been constructed along the highway in certain areas exempt from federal controls. The research showed that neither flashing animation nor copy change had impacted traffic safety. In 1978, the federal government amended the Highway Beautification Act to allow on-premise commercial variable electronic message signage, so long as the messages were sequenced on and off in a manner that did not constitute "flashing." However, Congress refrained from setting a time limit on the sequencing of the messages, instead opting for a "reasonable interval" standard.

While the definition of "reasonable interval" is not clear it is evident that any control of copy change time interval must be exercised with caution to avoid those time limits becoming de facto content control. This is a likely risk as the copy change time interval necessary for effective communications is dependent on the physical characteristics of each message center. A multiple line, text only message center is likely to normal display a complete message and therefore the time interval between copy changes can be several seconds. A short, single line message center operated by a small business may only be able to display a single word at a time. In this case the copy must change at a rate that enables comfortable reading of the message or the business is unable to communicate.

In 1980, following the 1978 amendment, the Federal Highway Administration undertook one more study of variable electronic messaging. The research could not establish any statistically supportable link between commercial electronic variable message signage and highway crashes. During the subsequent 22 years, no research has emerged that contradicts the 1980 finding.

Electronic message centers and electronic sign technology are continuing to advance at a breathtaking rate. New signs are offering minimal energy use simultaneously with nearly magazine quality images. Regulations that are overly specific or restrictive could have the unintended consequence of limiting technological advances which might offer greater energy-efficiency and communication advantages. We recommend that regulators differentiate between "flashing" signs and "variable electronic message centers."

Back to the index of Legal Case Studies