In the Shadow of a Property Dispute

In March, The New York Times ran a story about a feud between two neighbors in Fairfax, Virginia, over an unsightly, three-story home addition. The homeowner’s next-door neighbor was angered by the 32-foot-tall addition, which towered over her single-story home from the edge of his property. After complaints about the addition drew local news attention, the zoning board investigated and found that it was 7.2 inches too close to the neighbor’s property, which violated the required 8-foot setback rule. A stop-work order was issued, and construction stopped. Now, the addition stands empty and unfinished, useless to the homeowner and an eyesore to the neighbors.

This situation raises several questions of property law. On the one hand, a homeowner has a right to improve their property by building a home addition within certain legal limitations. On the other hand, a next-door neighbor has a right to use and enjoy their property. How might each party defend their property rights in this situation or come to an agreement?

One possible answer to this dispute over a building’s height is the doctrine of private nuisance from Sans v. Ramsey Golf & Country Club, Inc. In this case, a family moved into a new home in a residential and country club development that contained a nine-hole golf course with two tees located within 40 feet of the family’s backyard. To access the third tee from the second green, golfers would walk along a strip of land just behind the family’s house. The constant movement of players from sunup to sundown was accompanied by a flow of conversations that became “annoying” and “burdensome” to the family. The players would also lose their balls in the family’s backyard and trespass to retrieve them. The court defined a private nuisance as conduct that “materially and unreasonably interfere[s] with plaintiffs’ comforts or existence, ’not according to exceptionally refined, uncommon, or luxurious habits of living, but according to the simple tastes and unaffected notions generally prevailing among plain people.’” The court held that the golfers’ noise pollution and trespassory actions were incompatible with “the ordinary and expected comfortable life in plaintiff’s home and the normal use of their property.” After weighing each party’s conflicting interests, the court found these impacts were a material and unreasonable interference with their plain living habits. It reached what it proposed was a reasonable accommodation, requiring the club to relocate the tees and shift the course of play away from the family’s home.

In the situation of the Fairfax neighbor whose property is overshadowed by the three-story home addition, she may have an actionable private nuisance claim. The court in Sans identified three elements for showing a private nuisance: a (1) material and (2) unreasonable (3) interference with the plaintiff’s comforts or existence. The test for an unreasonable interference is “according to the simple tastes and unaffected notions generally prevailing among plain people.” First, the addition’s impact on the next-door neighbor was material because it blocked sunlight from her property in places it previously reached, which she can argue created a material injury to the property. Second, the addition blocks sunlight to her property, which she can argue is unreasonable because it disrupts an ordinary aspect of her residential use. Additionally, she may be able to satisfy unreasonableness by showing a decreased market value of her home. Ultimately, the judge will make a judgment call on whether the interference is unreasonable. Third, it has diminished her enjoyment of using her outdoor space, which is an interference with the plain comforts of her lifestyle.

The 7.2-inch deviation presents an interesting problem. If the homeowner’s builder had followed the zoning law to the letter, then the homeowner could argue that blocking sunlight is not unreasonable when it results from properly zoned construction. However, because the addition extends 7.2 inches beyond the required setback from his neighbor’s property line, the zoning violation alone may constitute negligence per se. Accordingly, the court may require the homeowner to remedy or remove the structure.

Given the flexibility of the reasonableness test and general nuisance analysis, courts have a lot of power to balance the equities in a dispute like this one. In many situations, this can be a good thing if the zoning laws do not go far enough. On the other hand, this analysis can make outcomes uncertain and unpredictable, which raises the question of whether clearer rules governing overhangs and blocking sunlight would be better to create more certainty for property owners. Although zoning boards and homeowners’ associations often try to create bright-line rules to promote predictability, overly rigid standards risk ignoring the factual nuances that make each dispute unique. An effective framework will provide guidance without displacing the equitable discretion courts use to reach fair outcomes.

Lydia Hennessey is a law student at the American University Washington College of Law.

Image: Goose Green Photography, A house under construction.