Appeal from order of Court of Common Pleas of York County, May T., 1965, No. 435, in re appeal of Ammon R. Smith Auto Co. from decision of West Manchester Township Board of Adjustment.
Emanuel A. Cassimatis, with him Stock and Leader, for appellant.
Harry C. Elsesser, Jr., for appellee.
Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien and Roberts, JJ. Opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Bell.
This is an appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas affirming the decision of the West Manchester Township Zoning Board of Adjustment which sustained an Ordinance prohibiting, under circumstances hereinafter set forth, flashing and intermittent lights on signs.
Ammon R. Smith Auto Company, appellant, is a corporation which is the owner and occupant of premises 925 Carlisle Avenue, West Manchester Township, York County, Pennsylvania. Appellant acquired the property in 1954 and is presently utilizing it as a used car lot. In November and December of 1962 appellant installed at a total cost of $1,220.05,*fn1 four electrical signs on its property. Each one of these signs is approximately 40 inches high and is in the shape of a five-pointed star. These signs are equipped with a motor driven timer which causes them to flash at repeated intervals.*fn2 The lights on the signs are in operation from dusk to about 10:00 P.M. each night except Sunday.
The challenged Ordinance, which became effective October 5, 1963, prohibited, pursuant to a comprehensive zoning plan, flashing and intermittent lights throughout the entire township. The Ordinance also required that nonconforming signs must be corrected within a specified short period, and provided for a penalty of a fine of not less than $50 and not more than $500 for each violation, and in default of payment of the fine, imprisonment for not more than sixty days.
The power of a municipality to order the termination of a nonconforming use (with or without amortization or payment to the owner) which existed prior to the adoption of a zoning ordinance has been the subject of much controversy and litigation. Although there is no appellate Court case in Pennsylvania which squarely decides this question, there is a split of authority on this issue in other states.*fn3
The reason for this diversity of view is that the fundamental rights of an owner of land sometimes conflict with the police power, which in this field is based upon the safety of the public who drive by and are likely to be distracted by the sign.
The traditional Pennsylvania viewpoint favors the landowner, based upon the principle that a lawful nonconforming Page 496} use establishes in the property owner a vested property right which runs with the land and cannot be abrogated or destroyed, unless it is a nuisance or is extinguished by eminent domain. Cf. Eitnier v. Kreitz Corp., 404 Pa. 406, 412, 172 A.2d ...