Also known as: unreasonable interferences · nuisance
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An element of private nuisance requiring that the gravity of the harm to the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of land outweigh the social utility of the defendant's conduct. The interference must be substantial and not merely the product of the plaintiff's hypersensitivity.
Umeko Uchida owns a fishing-gear shop beside a public lake. The Hog Farm Partnership sprays liquid manure on adjacent fields, sending odors and flies that drive away her customers during peak season. The farm's regulatory violations and recurring invasions make the harm to Uchida's business outweigh the ordinary utility of agricultural operations.
Uptown Apparel holds an easement for a road across Upstream Petroleum's land. Upstream fails to repair the pipeline crossing the road after a leak, causing repeated potholes that block delivery trucks. The beneficiary's duty to maintain the servient estate prevents the unreasonable interference with the dominant owner's access.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Uri Underwood buys oceanfront lots for development. A neighbor's industrial operation dumps waste that destroys all vegetation and renders the lots unusable. The total destruction of use and enjoyment constitutes unreasonable interference even though the activity has some economic value.
Ursula Upton owns a home next to a vacant lot. The adjacent owner begins open-pit composting that produces constant odors and pests invading Ursula's yard. The scale and persistence of the invasion make the harm to Ursula's use and enjoyment outweigh any utility of the composting operation.
Ulrike Ulrich owns waterfront property. A neighboring factory expands its sludge lagoons so that seepage regularly floods Ulrike's yard with contaminated water. The recurring physical invasion and resulting loss of enjoyment amount to unreasonable interference.
Urban Utley owns land used for light manufacturing. A new owner of the adjoining parcel begins a rendering plant whose emissions make Utley's outdoor storage area unusable. The emissions substantially impair Utley's use and enjoyment and constitute unreasonable interference.
Only persons holding a possessory interest or other legally protected property right in the affected land may sue. Licensees and mere residents without such interests lack standing.
Supporting sources
Courts weigh the gravity of the harm against the social utility of the defendant's conduct, considering factors such as the character of the neighborhood, the suitability of the use, and any regulatory violations.
Supporting sources
A common-interest association may enforce a reasonable rule protecting shared resources even if it restricts an individual owner's operations, provided the rule addresses a documented threat to common property and applies evenhandedly.
Supporting sources
…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,…