Nuisance is a common law tort. It is one of the oldest causes of action known to the common law, with cases framed in nuisance going back almost to the beginning of recorded case decisions.
Under the common law, persons in possession of real property (either land owners or tenants) are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their lands. If a neighbour interferes with that quiet enjoyment, either by creating smells, sounds, pollution or any other hazard that extends past the boundaries of the property, the affected party may make a claim in nuisance. Under the common law, the only remedy for a nuisance was the payment of damages. However, with the development of the courts of equity, the remedy of an injunction became available to prevent a defendant from repeating the activity that caused the nuisance, and specifying punishment for contempt if the defendant is in breach of such an injunction.
To be a nuisance, the level of interference must rise above the merely aesthetic. For example, if your neighbour paints their house purple, it may offend you, but it does not rise to the level of nuisance. In most cases, normal uses of a property that can constitute quiet enjoyment cannot be restrained in nuisance either. For example, the sound of a crying baby may be annoying, but it is an expected part of quiet enjoyment of property and does not constitute a nuisance.
In the USA, existing uses of a property are generally not considered a nuisance if a new neighbour finds them objectionable. For example, if you move next door to a pig farm, you cannot claim that the normal operation of the pig farm constitutes a nuisance. However, if a pig farmer moves into a property that was formerly held by a flower nursery, their activities may constitute a nuisance. However, under English law, the situation is different: the 1879 case of Sturges v Bridgman is still good law, and a new owner can bring a claim in nuisance for the existing activities of a neighbour.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the law of nuisance became difficult to administer as competing property uses often posed a nuisance to each other and the cost of litigation to settle the issue grew prohibitive. As such, most jurisdictions now have a system of zoning that describes what activities are acceptable in a given location. Zoning generally overrules nuisance. For example, if a factory is operating in an industrial zone, neighbours in the neighbouring residential zone cannot make a claim in nuisance. However, some jurisdictions still do not have zoning laws, which essentially leaves land use to be determined by the laws concerning nuisance.
There are two types of nuisance - private and public. An example of a private nuisance is a stereo being played too loud. In such a case, any property owner offended by the nuisance may sue. However, if a nuisance is widespread enough, but yet has a public purpose, it is often treated at law as a public nuisance. In such a case, a private property owner or lessor has no standing to bring a suit, and such suits may only be brought with the permission of the Attorney-General. In most jurisdictions, the pollution of water is classified as a public nuisance and individual plaintiffs have no standing.
Many states have limited the use of the law of nuisance. This often became necessary as the sensibilities of urban dwellers were offended by smells and agricultural waste when they moved to rural locations. For example, many states and provinces have "right to farm" provisions that allow any agricultural use of land zoned or historically used for agriculture, even if it poses a nuisance.
The boundaries of the tort are potentially unclear due to the public/private nuisance divide and existence of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Writers such as John Murphy of the University of Manchester have popularised the idea that Rylands and Fletcher forms a separate, though related tort. This is still and issue for debate and is rejected by others (the primary distinction is Rylands v Fletcher concerns 'escapes onto land', and so it may be argued the only difference is the nature of the nuisance, not the nature of the civil wrong.)
The content of this page is retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuisance under GFDL
