I’m thinking that the edge of the shadow on the sign would not be that sharp at that distance from whatever’s casting the shadow. Also the bricks on the right hand edge are a bit out of focus, but the sign shows no depth of field. OCD? not me.
What’s casting part of the shadow may be hood on the light fixture visible in the upper left, protruding beyond the shadow of the building’s roof eaves; the shadow of the sign itself does suggest a high sun angle. The shadow line on the bricks is less distinct, but the brick surface is very rough.
I think if it’s photoshopped the only thing that would need to be ‘shopped would be the content of the sign, while other elements in the picture, such as shadow lines, could be left intact. Therefore the elements to be studied would be the lettering only.
Letter alignment and light values would be the thing to look at. FWIW, I think most sign photoshops are full-on or nearly so, to simplify the insertion of the fake lettering.
I vote real pic of a physically existent fake sign.