In a 4-3 decision, the Court held that an outdoor advertising company is not entitled to compensation from the City of Madison after the City constructed a bridge blocking visibility of a billboard. Justice Walsh Bradley wrote the decision, joined by Justices Abrahamson, Gableman, and Ziegler.

The City of Madison constructed a pedestrian bridge that blocked visibility from the Beltline Highway of the west-facing side of Adams Outdoor Advertising’s billboard. The billboard is nonconforming to a Madison City Ordinance stating that new outdoor advertising signs are prohibited, so Adams may keep but not modify the billboard.

Adams argued they were entitled to just compensation for private property taken for public use, under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Art. 1 § 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution. According to Adams, the property interest in this case is the right to the legal nonconforming use of its property, which was taken when the bridge diminished the property’s sole use – visibility. The Court said that Adams still retains the right to legal nonconforming use of the billboard, despite the bridge placement, because the City did not physically alter Adams’ property.

The Court agreed with the City that the property interest in this case is Adams’ right to visibility of his property from a public road, which is not a recognized property right. Thus, a property interest does not exist for the purpose of just compensation under the U.S. and Wisconsin Constitutions. Since Adams failed to demonstrate a recognized property interest, the Court affirmed the summary judgement in favor of the City of Madison.

Justices R. Bradley, Kelly, and Chief Justice Roggensack dissented, writing that an unconstitutional taking occurs when government denies all economically viable use of a person’s property. In contrast to the majority, the dissent defined the property interest as the billboard permit. The dissent determined that the value of the property was in the permit for nonconforming use and the visibility of the billboard for advertisers wishing to rent space. Because the bridge eliminated the entire value of the permit for the west-facing side of the billboard, the bridge construction was a compensable taking.