Also known as: private nuisance · private nuisances · private nuisance law
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An invasion of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of land that occurs without physical entry onto the land.
Lily Lopez operates a small bakery whose exhaust vents release baking odors and heat directly onto the backyard patio of Lola Langley's adjacent home. The odors and heat make it impossible for Langley to use her patio for meals or relaxation during business hours. Langley sues Lopez for damages arising from the interference with her residential use.
Lumen Capital installs new crushing machinery at its recycling plant after receiving complaints from neighboring homeowner Luna Lang about noise and vibration. The company continues running the equipment without enclosures despite knowing the added machines will increase the disturbance reaching Lang's bedroom at night. Lang seeks an injunction and damages.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Lorenzo Lugo plans a tall addition to his home that will cast permanent shade over Leonard Lowe's solar panels and garden. Lowe sues to stop the construction, claiming the loss of sunlight unreasonably interferes with his established use of the land for energy production and outdoor activities.
Lamar Lewis builds a large structure on his beachfront lot that diverts sand and blocks natural dune migration onto Lola Langley's neighboring parcel. Langley sues Lewis for damages arising from the resulting interference with her established use of the land for erosion control and recreation.
Linden Logistics applies herbicide by plane near Lola Langley's organic farm. Particles drift onto her crops and soil, damaging yields and requiring remediation. Langley sues the company for the resulting interference with her agricultural operations.
Lone Peak Energy maintains a holding pond whose overflow repeatedly floods Leonard Lowe's adjacent pasture. Lowe sues for damages arising from the interference with his agricultural use of the land even though no physical entry by Lone Peak personnel occurs.
Only those who hold a property right or privilege in the affected land may recover. This includes possessors such as owners and tenants as well as holders of easements or profits whose use and enjoyment is impaired. A mere licensee or manager without a present possessory interest lacks standing.
No. Operating under required permits or within zoning rules does not immunize a defendant from liability. A lawful activity may still constitute a nuisance if it substantially and unreasonably interferes with a neighbor's use and enjoyment of land.
Liability may rest on an affirmative act that produces the invasion or on a failure to act when the defendant is under a duty to prevent or abate the interference. Continued operations after notice of harm can satisfy the conduct element.
One factor is the suitability of the invaded use to the character of the locality. A use that fits the neighborhood's existing or reasonably developing character receives greater protection than one that does not.
…that could have been achieved in the courts by adjacent landowners (or other uniquely affected persons) under the State's law of private nuisance, or by the State under its complementary power to abate nuisances that affect the public generally, or otherwise. On this analysis, the owner of a lake bed, for example, would not be…