The Costs of Disrepair

For nearly twenty years, an abandoned office building and adjacent retail property sat at a heavily trafficked intersection in Northern Virginia. The buildings were owned by an absentee landlord who had moved to New York and failed to maintain the property. Over time, the structures fell into severe disrepair: windows were broken, birds nested inside leaving droppings throughout the building, walls were covered in spray paint, fixtures had been removed, and the property suffered from leaks, infestations, and other deterioration. Homeless individuals frequently occupied the space, further contributing to the unsafe and unsightly condition.

Because the property was located along a major highway and central roadways, its neglected condition became a visible eyesore and conflicted with the county’s broader revitalization efforts. The county encouraged the absentee owner to sell, and after months of negotiation a local developer purchased the property. The developer cleaned, renovated, and leased the buildings, transforming the once-abandoned site into a productive and improved property.

To resolve disputes involving neglected land uses, it is helpful to examine the nuisance doctrine discussed in Puritan Holding Co. v. Holloschitz. In that case, a property owner abandoned a building that became unsightly and violated local codes, causing the value of a neighboring apartment building to decline. The neighbor sued, arguing that the deteriorating condition interfered with the use and enjoyment of their property. The court held that nuisance includes an “unreasonable, unwarrantable, or unlawful use of one’s property which produces such material annoyance, inconvenience, discomfort, or hurt to a neighbor to the extent that the law can award damages.” The court reasoned that property owners must avoid maintaining their property in ways that substantially harm neighboring landowners. Because the abandoned property created ongoing negative effects, the court allowed the plaintiff to seek relief.

This doctrine of nuisance provides insights into resolving the dispute over the abandoned office and retail buildings in Northern Virginia. A nuisance is defined as an “unreasonable, unwarrantable, or unlawful use of one’s property which produces such material annoyance, inconvenience, discomfort, or hurt to a neighbor.”

First, the doctrine requires an unreasonable, unwarrantable, or unlawful use of the property. Neighbors could argue that allowing a property at a major intersection to remain abandoned for twenty years, with broken windows, infestations, and structural decay, constitutes an unreasonable use of property. The absentee owner might respond that the property was simply unused rather than actively harmful, and that owners generally have discretion over how they use or maintain their land. However, allowing the land to sit unused created the unreasonable use of the property.

In determining unreasonableness, the Restatement of Torts suggests considering whether the gravity of the harm outweighs the utility of the conduct. The harm to the community, including decreased property values, public safety concerns, and aesthetic damage to a major intersection, likely outweighs the benefit an absentee owner gained from leaving the property vacant. Because the owner derived little productive use from the property while imposing significant external costs on the surrounding area, the balance likely favors a finding of nuisance.

Second, the rule requires that the unreasonable use produces such a material annoyance, inconvenience, discomfort, or hurt to a neighbor. Nearby property owners could argue that the abandoned structures interfered with their ability to enjoy or profit from their property because the buildings were visibly deteriorated, unsafe, and attracted undesirable activity such as vandalism and trespassing. Conversely, the absentee owner might argue that simply leaving a property unused does not necessarily interfere with neighbors unless a direct harm can be proven.

The nuisance doctrine appears to produce a fair outcome in this scenario because it encourages responsible land stewardship while protecting neighboring property owners from harmful externalities. From a property theory perspective, nuisance law reflects the principle that property rights are not absolute and must be exercised in a way that does not unreasonably harm others. Allowing a property to deteriorate for decades at a major public intersection imposes social and economic costs on the surrounding community that outweigh the owner’s interest in neglecting the land.

Alena Makheja is a student at the American University Washington College of Law.

Image: Nick-D, Abandoned office building on Furzer Street Phillip October 2016.