Also known as: intentional nuisances · nuisance
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An intentional invasion of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of land that constitutes a private nuisance when the invasion is substantial and unreasonable. The invasion must be nontrespassory and affect a protected property interest such as possession or an easement.
River City Ballpark LLC upgraded its sound system and blasted music and fireworks late into the evening. Maple Court Cooperative Inc. owns the residential building across the street. Resident Parker occupies a unit only under a revocable license with no leasehold or other property interest. Parker sues for private nuisance. The court dismisses the claim because Parker lacks any protected property interest in the land whose use and enjoyment is impaired.
A state regulation bars all economically beneficial use of a coastal parcel acquired years earlier. The owner sues claiming a per se taking. The court holds that no compensation is due because the prohibited use already constituted an intentional private nuisance under background principles of property law at the time of acquisition.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
New York City designates Grand Central Terminal a landmark and blocks construction of a fifty-story tower above it. Penn Central Transportation Co. sues alleging a taking. The Court analyzes the economic impact and investment-backed expectations but notes that intentional nuisance principles may still limit uses that substantially interfere with neighboring property interests.
Los Angeles adopts an ordinance dispersing adult bookstores and theaters. Alameda Books challenges the measure as violating the First Amendment. The Court upholds the ordinance after finding it serves a substantial government interest in reducing secondary effects that could amount to intentional nuisances affecting nearby property use and enjoyment.
Florida restores eroded beaches by adding sand that changes the mean high-water line. Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc. claims a judicial taking of littoral rights. The Court examines whether the state action eliminates an established property right or merely prevents an intentional nuisance arising from erosion control.
Detroit enacts an ordinance limiting the location of adult movie theaters. American Mini Theatres challenges the measure. The Court sustains the zoning because the ordinance targets secondary effects that constitute intentional nuisances interfering with the use and enjoyment of surrounding residential property.
Only those who hold a protected property interest in the affected land may recover. This includes possessors, easement holders, and owners of other nonpossessory estates whose use and enjoyment is impaired. A bare licensee or guest without such an interest lacks standing.
Supporting sources
No. Compliance with permits or air-quality standards does not automatically bar recovery. A plaintiff may still prevail by showing that emissions or operations substantially and unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring land.
Supporting sources
When assessing the gravity of harm, courts consider the suitability of the defendant's use to the character of the locality. Nighttime industrial operations are less suitable in a quiet residential or wildlife rehabilitation area than in a heavy industrial zone.
Supporting sources
…the erection of a building of a particular kind or for a particular use, like the question whether a particular thing is a nuisance, is to be determined, not by an abstract consideration of the building or of the thing considered apart, but by considering it in connection with the circumstances and the locality.…