ABSTRACT
Amortization provisions will normally be upheld against a Substantive Due Process challenge because of the long-recognized public interest in eliminating nonconforming uses. The major factor that courts have cited in making this determination is whether the amortization period is of sufficient length to allow the owner of the nonconforming use to recoup most of his or her investment. Most likely, the city would argue that these differing amortization periods reflect the varying level of concern with which it views nonconforming signs, depending on their location. The distinctions are thus related to the city's perception of the negative effects of the billboards on the surrounding area, with the most objectionable billboards being subjected to the shortest amortization period. A city's zoning ordinance prohibits billboards in all commercial zones, including: local and neighborhood retail, central business, campus office, enclosed mall, and highway commercial districts.
