Is a vacant building a “private nuisance” under the law?

Unfortunately, an ugly property does not create a private nuisance under California law, but that does not mean a neighbor is without recourse. Today, we look at the various aspects of a vacant property to determine whether the owner can be held accountable for the blight he causes on the neighborhood or for any other problems he might cause through maintaining a vacant structure. In each section that follows, I will provide quotes from California cases and follow with some finishing thoughts.

What is a private nuisance?

“[T]he essence of a private nuisance is its interference with the use and enjoyment of land.” (Oliver v. AT&T Wireless Services (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 521, 534.) “So long as the interference is substantial and unreasonable, and such as would be offensive or inconvenient to the normal person, virtually any disturbance of the enjoyment of the property may amount to a nuisance.” (Id. at 533.)

Appearance alone cannot create a private nuisance

“Several California appellate court decisions have ruled that the unpleasant appearance of neighboring property, in and of itself, does not rise to the level of a nuisance.” (Oliver v. AT&T Wireless Services, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th 521, 534.)

“Anything which is injurious to health, including, but not limited to, the illegal sale of controlled substances, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway, is a nuisance.” (Civ. Code, § 3479.)

“Nothing which is done or maintained under the express authority of a statute can be deemed a nuisance.” (Civ. Code, § 3482.)

There are limits to what neighbors can do with their property.

“When people live in urban and congested areas they acquire certain rights against, and they assume certain responsibilities towards, their neighbors. While they have the right to use their property, within certain limits, as they see fit, even if it annoys the neighbors or depreciates the value of adjoining property, they have no legal right to put their land to an unnatural use and to create thereon an unnecessary hazard to other properties.” (People v. Oliver (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 885, 890.)

The damage must be more than just reduced property value.

“A diminution in value does not interfere with the present use of property and cannot alone constitute a nuisance.” (Oliver v. AT&T Wireless Services, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th 521, 534.)

“Since ‘[t]he courts have held that a building or structure cannot be complained of as a nuisance merely because it obstructs the view from neighboring property’ (Venuto v. Owens–Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 166, 127, 99 Cal.Rptr. 350), it follows that the size and shape of a neighboring structure that does not obstruct the view and is otherwise permitted by law, however displeasing its appearance, cannot constitute a nuisance.” (Oliver v. AT&T Wireless Services, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th 521, 535–536.)

Concluding Thoughts

The preceding quotes have been taken from cases describing California law. They are the words of the courts, and thus, they describe the rights and the laws more eloquently than I could ever do. In answering the question of whether a neighboring property can cause a private nuisance sufficient to make a claim against the owner, it can. Although sight alone cannot be grounds for a suit (Oliver v. AT&T Wireless Services, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th 521, 534), the other violations of law trigger grounds for private nuisance. (Ibid.) Therefore, if a neighbor’s property is unsightly and violates health and safety ordinances, then its condition might be sufficient to constitute a nuisance claim.