## Facts

- The City of Raleigh enacted a 1983 ordinance regulating outdoor advertising signs, amending an earlier sign-zoning regime.
- The ordinance reduced allowable dimensions for off-premises signs, restricted such signs to industrial zones, and barred new nonconforming signs.
- Existing oversized billboards were classified as nonconforming uses and subject to an amortization period “in lieu of any form of compensation.”
- The ordinance became effective October 23, 1983, and required nonconforming billboards to be made conforming or discontinued by April 24, 1989, unless state law prohibited application.
- Five outdoor advertising companies owning 56 billboards filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting constitutional objections including a regulatory taking and excess of municipal police power.
- The superior court dismissed the complaint as time-barred, concluding the claim accrued upon enactment in 1983; the Court of Appeals reversed on the ground the dismissal order was signed without jurisdiction because it was entered out of term.

## Issues

1. Whether a superior court judge had jurisdiction to enter an order dismissing the complaint out of term, out of session, and out of county.
2. Whether the claims challenging the ordinance were barred by the statute of limitations because accrual occurred upon enactment in 1983 rather than at the end of the amortization period in 1989.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for reinstatement of the trial court’s dismissal order.
- The trial judge had jurisdiction to enter the dismissal order out of term under applicable statutes and rules authorizing such action.
- The complaint was untimely because the cause of action accrued when the ordinance was adopted in 1983.
- The Court did not reach the merits of the constitutional challenges because the case was resolved on jurisdictional and limitations grounds.

## Legal Principles

- When statutes and rules authorize it, a North Carolina superior court judge may enter certain orders out of term, even if signed out of session and outside the county.
- A facial challenge to a land-use or sign-control ordinance accrues upon enactment, even if the ordinance includes a delayed amortization or phase-out period.
- If a plaintiff attacks an ordinance’s validity based on its terms (including an amortization scheme “in lieu of compensation”), the limitations period generally runs from the effective date of enactment rather than from later compliance deadlines.

## Conclusion

The court held that the dismissal order was validly entered out of term and that the billboard companies’ facial constitutional challenge accrued when the ordinance was enacted, rendering the action time-barred and requiring dismissal without reaching the underlying takings and police-power claims.


Capital Outdoor Advert., Inc. v. City of Raleigh, 337 N.C. 150, 446 S.E.2d 289 (N.C. 1994)