From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Law (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tort or Property[edit]

Nuisance is more related to Property law than Tort law, however, and has become a subject invovling judicially created limitations on land use.

There is some overlap but I wouldn't go so far as to say nuisance is more property law than tort. In my understanding nuisance relates more to relationship between people rather than the relationship between the people and their property. In any event, from my memory I've never seen a property textbook discuss nuisance but there isn't a tort book without a chapter on it. --PullUpYourSocks 04:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Ditto - it's covered in tort on the bar. bd2412 T 05:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Nuisance sounds in tort, but it heavily implicates property in all legitimate circumstances (the one case I've heard of where it doesn't involved a claim of nuisance against a bakery for baking a cockroach into a pie). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


Excuse me; there are numerous laws in numerous states ensuring a tenant's "right to quiet enjoyment" of his dwelling. Either this needs to be re-worded, or simply stricken. Tenant-landlord law is common; and landlords often feel as if they can do what they want to, but that doesn't give them leave to do so. This is also commonly known as a "force out," and when brought before a magistrate, the landlord usually loses. WB2 (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Nuisance beyond law(?)[edit]

Is it not characteristic of nuisance that it typically presents as petty and is therefore not easily addressed or resolved by law, contrary to the current impression given by this article? Indeed, is not one of the term's very definitions 'a problem which, however serious, long-term and intractable, appears too petty, on the face of it, to be addressed by standard procedures'? Is it not also worthy of mention that addressing nuisance is one of the conspicuous weaknesses of existing police and legal systems, often rendering victims helpless, violent, or resorting to the mediation agencies of the voluntary sector? Given that there tends to be a gap between that which can credibly be addressed by existing legal/enforcement recourses and resources, and that which can't or shouldn't, is it not the very nature of nuisance to inhabit such a 'no man's land'? In which case, should not the article include, at some point, a disclaimer to this effect? --Etaonsh 19:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The 'coming to the nuisance' section is incorrect[edit]

See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 840D (1977) "The fact that the plaintiff has acquired or improved his land after a nuisance interfering with it has come into existence is not in itself sufficient to bar his action, but it is a factor to be considered in determining whether the nuisance is actionable." At this time, that is the last complete restatement for torts. Of course, statutes within a state may provide protections that exceed the common law. 00:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you can fix the statement then, and provide the source. That's a very important point that comes up all the time as land use changes.Wikidemo 23:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I've removed it because nobody sourced it. We shouldn't leave an inaccurate statement like that up on the article. There is such a doctrine but it's not a universal matter of US law, and in fact the opposite is often true. For reference, the section I removed follows. Wikidemo 16:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
"In the U.S., the rule of coming to the nuisance bars a claim of nuisance for existing uses of property even if a new neighbor 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 property that was formerly held by a flower nursery, his activities may constitute nuisance."

Merge of LULU article[edit]

It's been proposed that locally unwanted land use be merged into this article because it's an alternate term for the same thing. I disagree, even though that article claims (without citation) that it is another word for nuisance. Nuisance is a legal theory and a tort, related to activities conducted on the land. LULU seems to refer to the use itself, not the legal theory or the tort. Moreover, I get the sense that a nuisance may not be what the land is used for in the abstract, not a "use" in a planning sense so much as an ongoing issue. The nuisance refers to the portion of activity that is the problem, whether or not it is really a use of the land. "unwanted use", by contrast, refers to the overall use to which the land is being put, in the abstract, not the specific actions that are being taken on the land and not only the objectionable part. So an "unwanted use" could be the fact of a cement factory, whereas the nuissance would be the noise, dust clouds, and fact that delivery trucks are using a local residential road at 3AM. The difference is important to the article because this article concentrates on the legal background and what happens in court. That stub article needs cleanup and citations, but if expanded and notable it would discuss local land use planning and politics, which doesn't factor in here.

I'm also concerned that LULU is only slightly notable - only a few thousand google hits, and the term is not all that common of use. As a weight matter it doesn't stand on equal footing to the concept of nuisance, and it would be a disservice to say here that they could be used interchangeably. Wikidemo (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Really LULU is not a nuisance in law terms and cannot be used interchangeably as you stated. I think that instead of merging it with this article we will need to expand the LULU one. I'll try to work on that, even though is nor exactly my cup of tea, I think I can do some decent work there to encourage someone to continue. But definitely the locally unwanted land use article must not be merged with Nuisance Marianolu (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)