DOYLE, Chief Judge.

Olympus Media, LLC, and Olympus officer Ray Moyers (collectively "Olympus") filed a declaratory judgment action against the City of Dunwoody seeking to challenge the City's authority to deny it a permit for an existing billboard and to clarify Olympus's rights under sign permits issued pursuant to a consent order with DeKalb County. The City counterclaimed, challenging the lawful existence of the billboard. Following discovery, the parties each moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted the City's motion and denied Olympus's motion, allowing Olympus the option to modify the existing billboard to conform with an earlier, un-enhanced version of the billboard as built when the consent order was entered. In Case No. A15A0881, Olympus appeals,1 and in Case No. A15A0882, the City cross-appeals the trial court's ruling that Olympus (or its predecessor) had not abandoned its rights to the billboard, thereby ruling that Olympus was not required to remove the billboard altogether. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in each case.

The record is largely undisputed and generally traces a long-running dispute over what type of billboard, if any, is allowed at a particular location. The record shows that in 2001, Action Outdoor Advertizing JV, LLC ("Action"), applied to DeKalb County for permits to erect a number of billboards, including the one at issue in this case (the "disputed billboard").3 The application proposed a static sign face measuring 10 feet by 50 feet. The County issued the permit, and, despite the permitted size, Action installed a sign face measuring 14 feet by 48 feet, some 172 square feet larger than the permit allowed.

In November 2001, the County revoked Action's permit for the sign on the ground that the sign, both as permitted and as constructed, exceeded the size allowed by the County's ordinance for a sign in that location. The County's notice of violation explained that under a formula in the applicable County Code section, the maximum area for a sign in that location was calculated to be 132 square feet, based on the limited road frontage at that site. Action appealed the revocation to the Superior Court of DeKalb County, and in 2004, the court sustained the revocation and held that Action had no vested right in the revoked permit because it was issued in violation of the County's zoning requirements.4 The superior court entered a final judgment that is undisturbed by appeal.

Meanwhile, the disputed billboard remained out of compliance as a static sign advertizing the now-defunct 99X alternative rock FM radio station. Once the permit was revoked, rather than dismantling the sign, Action entered into discussions with the County to preserve the sign and resolve an ongoing dispute with the County over a number of existing and proposed billboards for which Action also had sought permits in 2001. During that time, in January 2006, Metro Brokers realty company began leasing the sign, and two physical changes were made to the sign: a "Metro Mike" cartoon character was added with a moving arm that extended beyond the edge of the sign face, and a 5-foot by 20-foot (100 square feet) electronic sign was added to the corner, usually displaying the number of houses on sale in the area.

In February 2008, the superior court entered a consent order to finalize the legal status of all of the unresolved billboard sites, including the disputed billboard. In the order, the court addressed existing billboards and proposed billboards in two different sections. First, the court ordered the removal of five existing billboards. Next, the court ordered the County to issue the necessary permits to allow Action to retain certain signs "as presently constructed." That list included the billboard at issue in this litigation. As built at that time, the disputed billboard was composed of the Metro Brokers sign including the small electronic board.

The consent order also addressed thirty unbuilt billboard sites, and six of those signs were designated with an asterisk:

"Digital (LED) electronic signs" feature whole-face LED boards that can change rapidly or display multiple messages in series.5 The disputed billboard was not designated with an asterisk.

Shortly after the consent order was entered, in 2008, Action applied for and received permits from the County and the Georgia Department of Transportation for the disputed billboard, allowing it to be an indirectly illuminated, electronic, multi-message sign. Relying on these permits, in October 2008, Action rebuilt the billboard so that it could accommodate a five-ton, full-face digital LED board.6 This re-design included dismantling the existing sign and support pole, installing a stronger pole, and installing new wiring. After completion of the upgrade, Action reinstalled the original, mostly static Metro Broker sign face.

In December 2008, the City of Dunwoody was incorporated, and it purported to adopt certain zoning ordinances.7 In February 2009, Action's electrical contractor obtained a permit from the City to install certain new electrical equipment. The letter accompanying the permit stated the City's belief at that time that the authority for the sign as proposed had been established by the Consent Order.

In September 2010, Action installed a full-face digital LED sign on the disputed billboard. Later that same month, Action sold the billboard to Olympus.

In October 2010, the City adopted a new sign ordinance and amended it in July 2011. Based on the amended ordinance, the City issued a citation to Olympus for the sign. Before the citation was resolved, Olympus sued the City in the present action, seeking a declaratory judgment clarifying its rights in the disputed billboard. The trial court ruled that the upgraded sign was not authorized by the consent order:

The City and Olympus now appeal.

Case No. A15A0881

1. Olympus first argues that the trial court erred by concluding that the consent order did not authorize the redesigned, full-face LED sign. We disagree.

"The construction of a contract is a question of law for the court, and we apply a de novo standard of review on appeal."9

As summarized above, the consent order in this case was crafted to address a dispute about a number of billboard sites-some existing, some not. The order required some existing signs to be removed, preserved others, and allowed certain new ones to be built. With respect to the disputed billboard, which was an existing sign, the consent order provided as follows: "DeKalb County shall issue sign, building[,] and electrical permits to Action Outdoor to allow it to retain the following existing signs as presently constructed," including the disputed billboard. Given its plain meaning, this language shows an intent by the parties to preserve the status quo as to the disputed sign, allowing Action to maintain it "as presently constructed," i.e., with the static sign face featuring a small electronic board (not a full-face LED multi-message board).

Olympus argues that language elsewhere in the consent order demonstrates an intent by the parties to allow a full-face digital LED sign board. It points to language in the following provision:

Although the disputed sign was not designated with an asterisk (which was reserved for "digital (LED) electronic signs"), Olympus argues that the statement that the disputed billboard "presently is an electronic sign," is an acknowledgment that it belongs in the same category and is therefore entitled to permitting for the same full-face digital LED application. But this runs counter to the fact that the consent order uses the term "digital (LED) electronic sign" to refer to the asterisk signs, and it uses a different term, "electronic sign," to refer to the disputed billboard. It also runs counter to the fact that the disputed billboard lacks an asterisk. Further, the provision authorizes permits "for LED displays and/or electronic signs," which shows that the terms "LED display" and "electronic sign" are different concepts. Last, Olympus's construction conflicts with the premise that the disputed billboard was to be permitted "as presently constructed." Thus, Olympus's argument ignores the law's preference for "the construction of the contract which would uphold the contract in whole and in every part, and would not construe one provision of the contract so as to defeat the plain import of another provision."10

In sum, the difference in nomenclature ("digital (LED) electronic sign" v. "electronic sign") is a practical reflection of the fact that the sign, as built, had an electronic component, but it was not a full-face digital LED electronic sign. Nothing in the above language shows an intent in the consent order to change the nature of the disputed billboard as built. Accordingly, the trial court correctly concluded that the order did not authorize a conversion of the disputed billboard to a full-face digital LED sign.

2. Olympus next contends that even if the sign is determined to be out of compliance with the consent order, it should remain because (a) the City lacks standing, and (b) the City's sign ordinances are invalid. As noted above, the trial court did not rule on these issues, instead concluding as follows:

Assigning this as error, Olympus requests this Court to remand the case for determination of these issues.

In the present context, we are guided by the law of nonconforming uses.

Applied here, this principle demonstrates that the permits issued pursuant to the consent order — which permits allowed a full-face digital LED sign — were void because they permitted a sign not authorized by the consent order (or other law).12 Accordingly, the trial court correctly held that Olympus cannot rely on those permits to defend the billboard in its present form.13 But, as noted in Division 1, the consent order remains undisturbed, and Olympus is entitled to rely on its rights as established in the consent order consistent with this opinion.14 These rulings render moot Olympus's challenge to the validity of the City's ordinance as applied to the disputed billboard.

With respect to whether the City properly challenges the permits that issued, we note that the case was initiated by Olympus's declaratory judgment action filed against the City, and Olympus explicitly sought to defeat the City's enforcement authority based on an alleged "absolute right" to continue to maintain the upgraded billboard as authorized by the permits issued pursuant to the consent order. Under this procedural posture, the City was entitled to challenge Olympus's assertion in defense of the lawsuit brought against the City by Olympus.

Case No. A15A0882

3. In its cross-appeal, the City argues that the trial court erred by failing to rule that Olympus has no rights whatsoever in the billboard because Action abandoned them by dismantling the billboard and upgrading it to accommodate a full-face LED sign. The City relies in part on Tietjen v. Meldrim,15 a case in the context of abandonment of an easement, which provides as follows: "When ... nonuse[] is accompanied by acts manifesting a clear intent to abandon, and which destroy the object for which the easements were created or the means of their enjoyment, an abandonment will take place. The evidence to establish a forfeiture of an easement by abandonment or nonuse[] must be decisive and unequivocal."16 The City also cites Ansley House v. City of Atlanta,17 which involved the application of a one-year non-use period written into a zoning ordinance to establish abandonment: "[Historically,] the term `abandonment' was construed to mean the intentional relinquishment of a known right to devote the property to a permitted nonconforming use, evidenced by an overt act or failure to act, sufficient to support the implication of such an intent."18 Based on these principles, the City argues that Action abandoned the pre-existing use of the Metro Brokers billboard by dismantling it and upgrading it to accommodate a full-face digital LED sign board.

We disagree. Nothing in the act of upgrading the disputed billboard evinces an intent to cease using the billboard for advertizing, whether static, digital, or otherwise. If anything, Action's conduct reflected an intent to enhance its use of the disputed billboard, not abandon it. Accordingly, the trial court correctly ruled that Action had not abandoned any rights it had in the disputed billboard.

Judgment affirmed.

PHIPPS, P.J., and BOGGS, J., concur.