## Facts

- The Village of Lisle entered into a pre-annexation agreement with Chester and Judith Smith concerning the Smiths’ property in unincorporated Du Page County.
- The Smiths’ property was approximately 648 feet from, and not contiguous to, the Village’s corporate limits.
- The Village agreed to extend municipal water service to the property; in exchange, the Smiths agreed to improvement and land-use conditions tied to anticipated future annexation when annexation became legally possible.
- Before any annexation occurred, the Smiths leased part of the property to Action Outdoor Advertising Company.
- Action began constructing a large billboard on the site.
- The Village asserted the billboard violated obligations in the annexation agreement and sought to stop construction.

## Issues

1. Whether a municipality may enforce a pre-annexation agreement to regulate land use on property that is not contiguous to the municipality and not legally annexable at the time of the agreement.
2. Whether a municipality may use contract to exercise zoning-like control over noncontiguous, unincorporated land outside its corporate limits without statutory authority.
3. Whether the Village was entitled to injunctive relief to prevent billboard construction based on the annexation agreement.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for defendants and against the Village.
- The annexation agreement was unenforceable to control land use on the Smiths’ noncontiguous property because the property was not then capable of lawful annexation.
- The Village lacked statutory authority to regulate the billboard site, and the agreement could not supply that authority.
- Because the Village’s claims depended on an unenforceable attempt to extend municipal regulatory power beyond statutory limits, injunctive relief was properly denied.

## Legal Principles

- Under Illinois annexation law, contiguity is generally required; noncontiguous territory is not subject to annexation absent statutory authorization.
- Municipal authority is statutory; a municipality may not expand its territorial regulatory power through contract.
- Annexation agreements are valid only within statutory bounds and cannot be used to impose de facto zoning or land-use regulation over noncontiguous land outside municipal limits.
- Summary judgment is proper where the plaintiff’s claimed entitlement to relief depends on an ultra vires agreement and no material fact dispute affects the legal bar to enforcement.

## Conclusion

Because the Smiths’ property was noncontiguous and outside the Village’s statutory regulatory reach, the Village could not enforce the pre-annexation agreement to block the billboard, and judgment for defendants was affirmed.


Village of Lisle v. Action Outdoor Advert. Co., 188 Ill. App. 3d 751, 544 N.E.2d 836 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 1989)