Also known as: nuisances · private nuisance · public nuisance
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A nontrespassory invasion of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of land. Liability arises when the invasion is intentional and unreasonable or otherwise actionable under negligence or strict liability rules.
Neville Norton owns a home directly across a narrow inlet from a ship-repair yard operated by Nova Pharmaceuticals. The yard begins open-air sandblasting and welding at night, sending metallic dust that coats Norton's decks and furniture while compressor noise prevents sleep. Norton sues for private nuisance. The dust and noise constitute a nontrespassory invasion of his interest in the use and enjoyment of his land.
Nyah Ndlovu purchases coastal land intending to build rental homes. A new state regulation prohibits all development to protect dunes. Ndlovu claims a total taking. Because the prohibited construction would have created a common-law nuisance by flooding neighboring properties during storms, the regulation does not require compensation.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Nikhil Narayan operates a cattle feedlot on rural land. Years later Nina Nielsen develops a large retirement community nearby. Residents complain of odors and flies. Nielsen sues to enjoin the feedlot as a nuisance. The court finds a nuisance but balances equities and awards damages rather than an injunction because the developer came to the nuisance.
Nestor Navarro owns Grand Central Terminal. New York City designates the terminal a landmark and blocks construction of an office tower above it. Navarro claims a taking. The restriction does not constitute a taking because it prevents uses that would interfere with neighboring owners' interests in light, air, and historic character.
Nadia Novak lives with her grandson and his two children in a single-family zone. City ordinance limits occupancy to nuclear families. Novak challenges the ordinance as exceeding the police power. The court strikes down the restriction, finding it does not reasonably advance nuisance prevention by regulating household composition.
Neptune Energy operates a large cement plant. Nearby homeowners including Nestor Navarro sue for nuisance from dust, smoke, and vibration. The court finds a nuisance but denies a permanent injunction and awards permanent damages instead, allowing the plant to continue operations while compensating the neighbors.
The plaintiff must show a nontrespassory invasion of the interest in private use and enjoyment of land that is either intentional and unreasonable or otherwise actionable under negligence or strict liability rules. Causation and substantial harm are also required.
The court weighs the gravity of the harm to the plaintiff against the social utility of the defendant's conduct, the suitability of the location, and the cost of mitigation. Violation of a regulation or statute supplies evidence of unreasonableness.
A plaintiff may recover damages only upon proof of special harm different in kind from that suffered by the general public. Economic loss unique to the plaintiff's business satisfies the requirement.
Coming to the nuisance is a factor in balancing equities for injunctive relief but does not automatically defeat liability. Courts may award damages instead of shutting down an established activity.
Courts may grant an injunction, award damages, or both. When an injunction would cause disproportionate hardship, courts often award permanent damages and permit the activity to continue.
…that the government would seem to be singling out a particular property owner. Hadacheck, supra , at 413.[^maj-8] The nuisance exception to the taking guarantee is not coterminous with the police power itself. The question is whether the forbidden use is dangerous to the safety, health, or welfare of others. Thus,…