OVERVIEW
Robert Frost hit it on the head in his famous poem “Mending Wall” when he said that “good fences make good neighbors.” Living close to others can bring both connection and conflict. While most neighbors coexist peacefully, disputes are an all-too-common reality in densely populated communities like those across California.
From blaring music at all hours to encroaching tree roots, from foul odors to accusations of harassment, the list of potential disagreements is extensive. These conflicts can escalate into more serious issues involving trespass, defamation, or even destruction of property, particularly in diverse settings like HOA-governed communities where shared rules add another layer of complexity.
This article explores some of the most prevalent types of neighbor disputes that arise in communities throughout California, including things like:
- excessive noise;
- tree disputes (e.g., branches and roots);
- foul odors;
- illegal activity;
- harassment;
- spite fences;
- invasion of privacy;
- view obstruction;
- defamation (i.e., libel or slander); or
- destruction of property.
This article also examines some of the legal tools available to resolve such disputes, including claims for nuisance, trespass, and other remedies. Whether you’re a homeowner, tenant, or part of an HOA, understanding your rights and responsibilities is essential to maintaining peace—and when that fails, to resolving disputes effectively.
One last thing to remember as you read this Guide. Many of the items discussed below overlap closely with each other. For example, something that constitutes a nuisance might also fall into one or more other categories, such as noise, trespass, invasion of privacy, etc.
MOST COMMON TYPES OF NEIGHBOR DISPUTES
There are as many types of neighbor disputes as the human imagination is capable of conjuring. That’s another way of saying that people can be very creative when it comes to ways to annoy their neighbors. And that’s just taking into account the neighbor disputes that occur as a result of intentional conduct on the part of at least one of the neighbors. Because disputes can occur even when neither of the neighbors is trying to be annoying to the other.
One thing you’ll notice while reading this Guide is that many of the more common types of disputes discussed mix and merge with each other. In other words, the same conduct that constitutes a nuisance may also constitute harassment.
Excessive Noise
Excessive noise is one of the most frequent sources of tension between neighbors in California. Noise issues can range from loud music and late-night parties to barking dogs and construction work at odd hours. While everyone has the right to enjoy their property, this right often clashes with a neighbor’s right to peace and quiet, leading to disputes that can quickly escalate if not addressed effectively.
Many cities and municipalities have laws addressing excessive noise and setting limits on allowable noise levels during specific hours. For example, many municipalities prohibit loud activities between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Violating these ordinances can result in fines, warnings, or other penalties. In more serious cases, law enforcement may be called to intervene if the noise is deemed unreasonable or disruptive.
Excessive noise can constitute a legal nuisance under Civil Code section 3479. I discuss the elements of a nuisance claim later in this Guide. Noise disputes may also give rise to other claims. For instance, if noise emanates from intentional harassment, a neighbor might allege harassment or seek a restraining order. In rare cases, damages may be available for emotional distress if the noise is extreme and malicious.
Tree Disputes
It might surprise you to know that trees are among the most frequent causes of disputes between neighbors. Tree-related neighbor disputes take many forms, including, most commonly, disputes related to:
- damage to your property caused by encroachment of a neighbor’s roots;
- damage or debris to your property caused by falling trees or branches; and
- damage to or destruction of your trees.
Before getting into the specifics, however, the matter of who owns the tree(s) in question is of paramount importance. Fortunately, making that determination is, in most cases, relatively easy. The owner of a tree is the one upon whose land the trunk of the tree sits, regardless of whether or not the tree’s roots or branches extend onto someone else’s property (Civ. Code, § 833). If a tree’s trunk happens to rest on two different properties, then those property owners own the tree as tenants in common (Civ. Code, § 834). Such trees are sometimes referred to as “line trees.”
Encroaching Branches
A frequent source of tension between neighbors arises when the branches of a tree extend onto someone else’s property. Sometimes, the result of such branch encroachment is something positive—like in the case of a desirable fruit tree. Many of us have enjoyed an orange or lemon gifted to us by the branches of a neighbor’s fruit tree hanging over our property.
But more frequently, such encroachment is seen by the affected neighbor as a negative. Sometimes that negative is minor, such as when the invading branches create a mess of fallen leaves/flowers for us to pick up—it’s annoying, but we chalk it up as a normal part of life. Other times, however, encroaching branches can cause
costly damage, such as in the case of branches that have grown into the side of your home, damaged your power/cable lines, or fallen onto your roof, causing pooling and water leakage.
Fortunately, victims of such branch encroachment have a powerful remedy at their disposal: “self-help.”
Subject to a few limitations, if branches from a neighbor’s tree are hanging over onto your side of the property line, you have the legal right to remove those portions of the branches encroaching onto your land. It doesn’t matter whether or not the overhanging branches have caused damage to your property (i.e., you can act even if you’ve suffered no damage). It also doesn’t matter whether or not your cutting of the branches causes damage to your neighbor’s tree. Your rights in this regard are almost absolute. If the branches are hanging over the property line, you can cut them back to the property line.
Your rights to self-help in the removal of encroaching branches is almost absolute. For the most part, therefore, because the law gives you a virtually unconditional right to remove encroaching branches, you can’t sue a neighbor for nuisance because of such encroachment. You can sue for damages if the branches damage your property (or cause an injury to a person or animal), but you cannot sue to abate the nuisance because the law presumes that you’ll engage in self-help by simply cutting back the offending branches.
The reason your rights to self-help in this regard are not absolute is because different cities in California have local laws protecting certain types of trees, and those laws might trump a homeowner’s right to the self-help described here. Or, for example, take the California Coastal Commission. They have jurisdiction regarding the removal of certain flora found in certain of California’s coastal communities that would also trump your right to self-help.
Encroaching Tree Roots
When you hear of damage to another’s property caused by a neighbor’s trees, it is much more likely that the damage originated with the roots of the offending neighbor’s trees. Roots of large trees don’t care about property lines, and they can extend far in every direction. In so doing, those roots will often crack and lift cement, ruin pools, and cause water to flow in unintended directions. Your right to self-help in the case of encroaching roots, however, is more limited than it is in the case of overhanging branches. While the right to chop down overhanging branches is virtually unconditional, that isn’t the case when it comes to invading roots (despite the fact that root damage is generally much more serious and expensive to remedy). Simply put, while you are entitled to cut your neighbor’s roots back to the boundary line, your right to do so is limited by a reasonableness standard.
When it comes to cutting back the roots of a neighbor’s tree, courts in California have created a “balancing test” to assess whether the removing party (you) acted reasonably under the circumstances. The court will, for example, look to see if some other remedy might have solved the problem without causing the damage to the offending tree (e.g., such a as installation of a root barrier). In short, your right to cut your neighbor’s encroaching roots down will be weighed against your obligation to not damage or kill your neighbor’s tree.
To make matters even more confusing, some courts have suggested that your right to cut back a neighbor’s tree roots might be limited to situations where the encroaching roots are causing some actual damage to your property (e.g., neighbor’s roots are causing cracks in your hardscape or pool). That being said, the consensus seems to be that while you have a virtually unconditional right to cut back your neighbor’s branches to the property line regardless of what it does to the offending tree, when it comes to that tree’s roots, you have to act reasonably by considering whether a less intrusive means exist to resolve the issue (like, as was stated earlier, a root barrier).
No Right to Cut Down a Neighbor’s Tree
Although California law allows you to resort to self-help by cutting off overhanging branches or cutting back encroaching roots from a neighbor’s tree, that self-help does not extend to entering onto your neighbor’s property or cutting down the offending tree. Not only would such action constitute a trespass, which has criminal implications, but such conduct would leave you open to significant liability (Code Civ. Pro, § 733). In fact, in some instances, you could be held liable for triple damages if the destruction/damage is deemed intentional, or double damages if the injury is deemed “casual or involuntary” (Civ. Code, § 3346).
The bottom line is that if you’re engaging in the self-help options described above, do so within the confines of the law.
Foul Odors
Foul odors are another common cause of disputes between neighbors in California, often leading to complaints about quality of life and property enjoyment. These disputes can arise from various sources, including improperly managed trash, pet waste, cigarette or marijuana smoke, compost piles, or even certain cooking practices. Unlike noise, which can be measured with decibel levels, odors are subjective and harder to quantify, making these conflicts particularly challenging to resolve.
Local ordinances also play a significant role in addressing odor disputes. Many cities and counties have regulations governing waste management, air quality, and other potential odor sources. For example, excessive accumulation of garbage might violate municipal codes, giving neighbors the option to report the issue to local authorities for enforcement.
Also, under California law, foul odors can constitute a private nuisance under Civil Code section 3479 if they interfere with a neighbor’s ability to reasonably enjoy their property.
Spite Fences
Spite fences are a particularly contentious type of neighbor dispute, where one party constructs or alters a fence or structure not for a legitimate purpose, but to annoy, harass, or obstruct their neighbor. These disputes are often rooted in personal animosity and can escalate quickly, transforming simple property boundaries into battlegrounds.
Under California Civil Code section 841.4, a fence or structure exceeding 10 feet in height that is unnecessarily built or maintained to annoy a neighbor is classified as a “spite fence.” The law allows the affected party to seek legal remedies if they can prove the primary purpose of the structure is to harm or vex them rather than serve a reasonable function, such as providing privacy or marking property lines.
Courts evaluating spite fence claims will consider factors such as the timing of construction, the structure’s height and design, and its impact on the neighbor’s use and enjoyment of their property. If the court determines the fence was built with malicious intent, it may order the removal of the fence and award damages to the aggrieved party.
Illegal Activity
Illegal activity in residential neighborhoods is a significant and often alarming source of neighbor disputes. Whether it involves drug production or dealing, operating unauthorized businesses, failing to supervise a dog or other pet, or other unlawful conduct, these situations can threaten the safety, property values, and peace of an entire community. Common examples include the operation of methamphetamine labs, marijuana cultivation beyond what is legally allowed, unpermitted home-based businesses, and even criminal enterprises like human trafficking.
When illegal activity is suspected, the first step for most neighbors is to report it to local authorities. Law enforcement agencies, code enforcement officers, and municipal regulators have the power to investigate and address these concerns. For example, a suspected meth lab poses immediate health and safety risks due to the volatile chemicals involved and should be reported to the police or hazardous materials teams. Similarly, unpermitted businesses, such as auto repair shops in residential garages, can be reported to local zoning or code enforcement agencies.
In some cases, neighbors may also pursue civil remedies. For instance, illegal activity that creates significant noise, traffic, or other disruptions may constitute a nuisance under California Civil Code § 3479, allowing neighbors to seek injunctions or damages. Additionally, landlords can be held liable if they knowingly allow illegal activity to occur on their rental property. [Since addressing illegal activity requires caution, as direct confrontation can escalate tensions, you should exercise care in this regard.]
Harassment
Harassment is one of the most distressing types of neighbor disputes, as it directly targets individuals and often involves deliberate, repeated actions intended to annoy, intimidate, or harm. Unlike disputes over physical property, harassment focuses on personal interactions and can escalate into a hostile or unsafe environment. Understanding the various forms harassment can take is essential to addressing it effectively and seeking legal remedies.
Threats and Intimidation
Unfortunately, harassment among neighbors, often involving threats and intimidation, is all too common. Such harassment might include verbal abuse, such as yelling or using derogatory language, or more subtle actions designed to make a neighbor feel unwelcome or unsafe. For example, a neighbor might issue veiled threats about physical harm or damage to property in an attempt to intimidate.
Under California law, threats of harm can be grounds for a restraining order, especially if the threats are specific, credible, and cause fear for personal safety or injury to property. California’s civil harassment restraining orders, governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6, are available to victims who can show that the harassment at issue is both severe and ongoing. Such restraining orders are also available for people who can show that they’ve been victims of past physical violence as well.
Physical Violence
In extreme cases, harassment can escalate to physical violence. This might include assault, battery, or acts of vandalism against a neighbor’s property. Such conduct not only violates civil laws, but also constitutes criminal offenses, warranting immediate involvement from law enforcement. Victims can pursue legal action in both criminal and civil courts, seeking restraining orders, damages for personal injuries, and compensation for property damage.
And when it comes to violence, California law (when followed by a responsible DA) provides some strong protections for victims. For instance, Penal Code section 422 criminalizes threats of violence that cause the victim to fear for their safety. Additionally, victims of physical assault may file lawsuits for personal injury under tort law.
Discrimination
Neighbors may target others based on race, religion, gender, disability, or other protected characteristics. Such behavior may violate federal and state anti-discrimination laws. I mention it here because it does happen. But because individual homeowners have legal rights to discriminate in their private (i.e., non-commercial) lives, this usually presents itself more often within a homeowner v. his or her HOA context.
Defamation
Defamation—false statements that harm a person’s reputation—can arise in neighbor disputes when tensions escalate. Defamation claims generally involve accusations of libel (written statements) or slander (spoken statements). For example, a neighbor might falsely claim another is engaging in illegal activity, violating community rules, or behaving inappropriately, damaging their reputation within the neighborhood or beyond.
While defamation is a valid legal claim, pursuing it requires caution due to California’s robust anti-SLAPP laws. These laws are designed to prevent lawsuits that improperly target free speech or legitimate public participation. If a defamation claim arises from statements made in a protected context—such as HOA meetings or reports to authorities—it could be dismissed early, and the plaintiff may have to pay the defendant’s attorneys’ fees.
To succeed in a defamation claim, the harmed party must prove the statement was false, caused reputational damage, and was made without privilege. However, factual statements or opinions generally cannot constitute defamation.
Stalking
Persistent, unwanted surveillance or following can constitute stalking, a criminal offense under Penal Code section 646.9. This behavior often involves watching a neighbor’s activities, showing up uninvited, or repeatedly sending unwanted messages. Stalking can also include intentional misuse of surveillance cameras to invade someone else’s right to privacy.
Noise
While excessive noise is often treated as a nuisance, noise harassment occurs when a neighbor deliberately creates noise to irritate or disturb, such as blasting music directed at a neighbor’s property (as opposed to simply playing music really loud for all to hear).
In other words, inadvertent behavior that constitutes a nuisance can easily transform into harassment if one can prove that the behavior is intentional (or done maliciously).
Property-Based Harassment / Destruction of Property
This may involve actions like blocking driveways, erecting spite fences, or tampering with a neighbor’s utilities to cause inconvenience or damage. Property-based harassment also includes claims for destruction of property.
Destruction of property is a serious issue in neighbor disputes, involving intentional or negligent damage to another’s property. Common examples include cutting down trees, damaging fences, tampering with landscaping, or vandalizing vehicles. Under California law, such actions can lead to both civil and criminal liability.
Affected homeowners may file a lawsuit for trespass or seek damages for the cost of repairs, loss of property value, and emotional distress. In severe cases, criminal charges like vandalism may apply (Penal Code § 594).
View Obstruction
Disputes over view obstruction are common in California, where scenic landscapes or ocean views often contribute significantly to property values. Homeowners who find their views blocked by new construction, overgrown trees, or other changes on a neighbor’s property may feel frustrated or financially impacted.
California law does not, however, generally protect a homeowner’s “view shed” unless specific legal or contractual provisions apply. In most situations, California law does not grant homeowners a right to an unobstructed view. This means that, in the absence of local ordinances or private agreements, a neighbor’s actions that block a view—such as planting tall trees or constructing a new structure—are not inherently unlawful. Property owners have wide latitude to use their land as they see fit, so long as they comply with zoning regulations, building codes, and other applicable laws.
Despite the general rule, some cities/towns in California have enacted view protection ordinances. For example, some cities/towns have passed specific ordinances limiting tree heights, requiring tree trimming, or regulating construction to preserve views.
Homeowners in non-HOA communities can file lawsuits for nuisance if a neighbor is violating a city ordinance relating to view obstruction. In HOA-governed communities, the governing documents may explicitly protect views. These provisions often require homeowners to maintain trees or landscaping at a certain height or restrict the construction of structures that could obstruct neighbors’ views. If an HOA’s rules include view protections, the association is typically responsible for enforcing them.
Invasion of Privacy
In the context of neighbor disputes, the issue of invasion of privacy most often arises in the context of a neighbor directing one or more video cameras in the direction of your property. Such conduct is not only not only actionable in civil court, but it’s also a crime. Such conduct is actionable civilly (meaning that you can sue your neighbor for invasion of privacy) under both the common law and under statutory law (e.g., Civil Code section 1708.8, which imposes significant fines on anyone who uses a device to record the private activities of another if, in the absence of using such a device, such invasion would not have been possible without trespassing).
With respect to the criminal aspects of such activities, Penal Code section 647(j) declares that it is a crime for a person to: (i) unlawfully invade someone’s else’s privacy—which includes looking into and/or recording the interior of a bedroom or any other area in which the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy; (ii) by means of any instrumentality, including a camera, motion picture camera, or other electronic device; (iii) with the intent to invade the occupant’s privacy. If convicted of violating section 647(j), a person faces up to six months in jail and fine(s).
Property Line Disputes
Property line disputes are among the most contentious conflicts between neighbors. Whether it’s a disagreement over a fence placement, an encroaching structure, or unauthorized use of land, these disputes can quickly escalate into costly and time-consuming legal battles. In California, property rights are governed by a combination of statutes, case law, and local ordinances, making it crucial for homeowners to understand their rights and obligations when conflicts arise.
Most frequently, property line disputes between neighbors generally fall into four key categories: (i) fences & common walls; (ii) trespass; (iii) easements; and (iv) encroachments.
Fences & Common Walls
Disputes over fences and common walls often arise when one neighbor builds or modifies a boundary structure without proper agreement. Sometimes, as is the case with spite fences (discussed above), the dispute relates to the existence of the wall itself. In some cases, however, the dispute relates to the maintenance of the wall. This occurs in cases where two neighbors are separated by what’s called a “party wall”—a wall that sits on the property line and is jointly owned by the neighbors—and one neighbor refuses to cover his or her share of the expenses to properly maintain the wall.
Trespass
As you’ll see later in this Guide, trespass claims involve not just the quintessential situation where one party unlawfully enters or uses someone else’s property, but also encompasses situations where, for example, a neighbor has changed his or her grading, causing water intrusion onto another’s property.
Easements
An easement is a legal right that allows one party to use another person’s property for a specific purpose. Easements can be created through written and recorded agreements, long-term use, or by necessity, and they often play a crucial role in property access, utility placement, and land use. Importantly, while easements grant certain rights, they do not transfer ownership of the land itself.
There are several types of easements, but the most common are: (i) express easements (these are formally created through a written agreement, typically recorded with the county. They are often used for shared driveways, private roads, or utility access); (ii) easements by necessity (these arise when a landlocked property has no access to a public road except by crossing another’s land. California law recognizes this type of easement when there is no reasonable alternative for access); (iii) prescriptive easements (theses are similar to a concept called adverse possession, and are acquired through continuous and open use of another’s land for at least five years without the owner’s permission); and (iv) easements by implication (these occur when a land division results in an implied right to access, even if not explicitly stated in a deed).
Encroachment
Encroachments occur when a structure, such as a deck, driveway, or even tree roots, extends onto a neighbor’s land, raising questions about property rights and potential legal remedies.
LIVING IN AN HOA-GOVERNED COMMUNITY
Homeowners associations are a defining feature of many California communities. These organizations are tasked with maintaining shared spaces, enforcing rules, and sometimes for ensuring harmonious living conditions among residents. The existence of HOAs, however, introduce an additional layer of complexity to the types of neighbor disputes discussed above, including noise complaints, foul odors, view obstructions, harassment, defamation, property destruction, and nuisance claims. Living in an HOA-governed community means that disputes between neighbors often involve not just the parties themselves but also the HOA, its rules, and its enforcement mechanisms.
The Role of the HOA in Neighbor Disputes
HOAs operate under governing documents (e.g., CC&Rs, Rules, etc.). Those documents outline what residents can and cannot do within the community and often include provisions aimed at preventing and resolving disputes. The HOA’s board, often assisted by property managers, is responsible for enforcing those rules.
When neighbor disputes arise, HOAs can, depending on what the governing documents say, get involved in a variety of ways, including: (i) mediating the dispute (e.g., some HOAs offer internal mediation services for neighbors to help resolve conflicts); (ii) enforcement (e.g., if one of the neighbors involved in the dispute is violating one or more provisions of the governing documents, the HOA can exercise its enforcement powers); and (iii) the HOA can file lawsuits to enforce their governing documents.
In other words, living in an HOA-governed community introduces an additional layer of complexity. Indeed, the handling of many of the specific neighbor disputes discussed earlier—such as excessive noise, nuisance, invasion of privacy, trespass, harassment, spite fences, and illegal activities—can be dramatically affected by the existence of an HOA. The following serve as just a few examples.
Nuisances
Nuisances are described in great detail in the next section of this Guide. All that you need to know at this point is that the governing documents for most California HOAs contain anti-nuisance provisions that prohibit residents from causing nuisances.
For example, many HOAs have “quiet hours” (typically between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.) in their governing documents. If a neighbor is persistently loud—whether due to parties, pets, or other disturbances—a complaint can be made to the HOA rather than dealing directly with the neighbor.
In HOA-governed communities, noise disputes can take on an additional layer of complexity. For example, noise issues originating from shared walls or floors in condominiums or townhouses can create challenges. Indeed, it’s much more difficult to determine what is or isn’t reasonable when it comes to noise resulting from normal activities, such as walking, opening and closing doors, normal conversation, or children being children. This is especially true because of the vast differences in the quality of construction amongst different condominium communities.
View Obstruction & Landscaping Disputes
Many HOAs, especially those near the beach, mountains, or in scenic vistas, have view protection provisions to protect members’ views. Those protections often limit the height of members’ trees, fences, or structures to preserve such views.
If, therefore, a neighbor were to allow a tree to grow unchecked or the neighbor were to erect an unapproved structure that blocked another member’s protected view, the HOA would responsible for enforcing the rules.
Spite Fences & Property Line Disputes
Disputes over fences and boundary lines are typically covered by architectural guidelines or maintenance rules in the HOA’s governing documents. If a neighbor builds a non-compliant fence, blocks a driveway, or encroaches onto another’s property, the HOA may intervene.
Invasion of Privacy & Security Issues
In HOA communities with shared spaces, security issues and privacy disputes can become a shared responsibility. For example, if a neighbor installs unauthorized security cameras that invade another homeowner’s privacy, the HOA may have rules prohibiting such installations without prior approval.
Illegal Activities
Illegal activities are, for obvious reasons, illegal. So, by definition, such activities would constitute a nuisance. Some illegal activities are specifically addressed in many HOAs’ governing documents.
For example, many HOAs explicitly prohibit members from operating businesses out of their homes (e.g., unlicensed daycares, auto repair shops, or offering short-term rentals). Such activities might not only violate local ordinances, but also provide independent grounds for HOAs to bring enforcement actions. Homeowners who witness illegal activity can report it to both local authorities and the HOA, which may have additional authority to impose fines or enforce compliance.
When the HOA Fails to Act: The HOA as a Legal Target
One of the biggest frustrations for homeowners in HOA communities is when the HOA refuses to enforce its own rules. Whether due to board negligence, favoritism, or a lack of resources, some HOAs fail to take action against problem neighbors, leaving affected homeowners with few options. When an HOA has a clear duty to enforce its governing documents and fails to do so, however, homeowners very often have legal recourse not only against the neighbor in question, but also against the HOA itself.
There are a variety of legal theories upon which a homeowner can pursue such claims against their HOA.
Failure to Enforce Governing Documents
An HOA that fails to enforce its own governing documents can be held liable for what amounts to breach of contract (with the CC&Rs, for example, being the contract in question). The homeowner’s claim would rest on a claim that the HOA breached its obligations under the applicable contract.
Negligence
An HOA that acts negligently can be held liable for negligence. Once of the more common facts underpinning negligence claims against HOAs in California relate to an HOA’s selective enforcement of its rules.
So, for example, if an HOA enforces rules against some residents but ignores similar violations by others, it may be exposed to claims of arbitrary and capricious enforcement under the Davis-Stirling Act, and that conduct usually occurs within the context of the tort of the negligence.
So, in the example above, if the HOA strictly enforced its view protection rules when it came to one member’s home, but then chose to ignore the same rule when that member’s neighbor ignored the same rule (by letting his or hedges get too high, for example), the member would be able to pursue claims against both the neighbor and the HOA (the latter for negligence).
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
In HOA-governed communities, the board of directors owes fiduciary duties to the homeowners, including the duty to enforce the CC&Rs fairly and in good faith. When an HOA board fails to act in response to a neighbor dispute—especially when its governing documents clearly require enforcement—the board members may be breaching their fiduciary duty to the community.
Under California law (including the Davis-Stirling Act), HOA board members owe fiduciary duties to their members. The two primary fiduciary duties that they owe are: (i) the duty of care (board members must make decisions in good faith, in a manner they believe to be in the best interests of the community, and with reasonable diligence); and (ii) the duty of loyalty (board members must act in the interest of the community as a whole, not in favor of personal interests or select individuals).
Ignoring a serious dispute, failing to investigate a complaint, or refusing to enforce CC&Rs are often examples of a breach of the duty of care, while engaging in selective enforcement is often an example of a breach of the duty of loyalty.
In short, when HOA boards turn a blind eye to disputes like noise violations, view obstructions, illegal businesses, or other rule breaches that affect the quality of life of residents, affected homeowners may have a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. Board members may also be breaching their fiduciary duties when they ignore nuisance complaints, fail to enforce view protections, or allow illegal activities to occur.
LEGAL CLAIMS
When informal resolution efforts fail, homeowners may need to turn to legal action to protect their property rights and personal well-being. California law provides a variety of legal claims (causes of action) that homeowners can bring against neighbors for all of the wrongful conduct discussed in this Guide. In HOA-governed communities, legal claims can also extend to the HOA itself when it fails to enforce governing documents or uphold its fiduciary duties.
This section outlines the key legal claims available in neighbor disputes, including those discussed above, Whether dealing with excessive noise, property damage, encroachments, privacy violations, defamation, or physical altercations, understanding the legal framework is essential for seeking the appropriate remedies and protecting your rights. And, as has been the case throughout this Guide, many of these overlap.
Nuisance
Nuisance lawsuits are a common legal remedy for resolving neighbor disputes. These lawsuits address situations where a neighbor’s actions or property use interferes with another’s ability to reasonably enjoy their own property. Nuisance claims fall into two broad categories: private nuisances and public nuisances.
Private Nuisances
A private nuisance occurs when an individual’s use of their property substantially and unreasonably interferes with a neighbor’s use and enjoyment of their own property. This claim focuses on harm to a specific person or group of people, rather than the public at large. Examples of private nuisance include many of the things discussed earlier in this Guide, such as:
- excessive noise;
- foul odors;
- illegal activity;
- harassment;
- spite fences;
- water runoff; or
- destruction of property.
To succeed in a private nuisance claim, a plaintiff must prove: (i) substantial interference (the nuisance must be more than trivial; it must significantly disrupt the plaintiff’s daily life); (ii) that the interference was unreasonable; and (iii) causation (the defendant’s actions must be the direct cause of the interference. Unintentional conduct may still constitute a private nuisance if the conduct arises from the defendant’s negligent or reckless conduct or from defendant’s engaging in an abnormally dangerous activity.
Public Nuisances
A public nuisance, by contrast, affects a broader community or the public at large. Public nuisances involve conduct that threatens public health, safety, or general welfare. Examples include things like: (i) illegal dumping or pollution; (ii) violations of local zoning laws; (iii) obstructing public roads or sidewalks; or (iv) operating a business without a license.
Although public nuisance claims are typically brought by government entities, such as cities or counties, private individuals may bring a public nuisance lawsuit if they can show that they suffered a harm that is distinct from the harm suffered by the general public.
Permanent v. Continuing Nuisances
In addition to being characterized as either private or public, nuisance claims are also characterized as either being continuing or permanent. Understanding whether a nuisance is permanent or continuing is critical in determining the remedies available and the statute of limitations for bringing a claim. The crucial distinction between a permanent and continuing nuisance is whether the nuisance is abatable—i.e., capable of being remedied at a reasonable cost and by reasonable means.
A permanent nuisance is one that is considered complete at a specific point in time and cannot change or fluctuate—e.g., construction of a building that violates another’s protected view or installation of equipment that produces a constant hum. The statute of limitations for bringing a permanent nuisance is three years (Code of Civ. Proc., § 338(b)), and if the plaintiff prevails, he or she will be entitled to money damages. The usual measure of such damages is the diminution in fair market value of the affected property. A prevailing plaintiff will also be entitled to recover the present value of losses or expenses that he or she might, with reasonable certainty, incur in the future because of the nuisance.
A continuing nuisance, on the other hand, involve nuisances that can be remedied or abated —e.g., noise or foul odors. For continuing nuisances, the statute of limitations resets with each new occurrence, allowing the plaintiff to bring a claim as long as the nuisance continues. Remedies for continuing nuisances often include both injunctive relief (to stop the nuisance) and damages for harm suffered up to the time of the lawsuit. In other words, a plaintiff cannot recover damages for diminution in value) because there is no certainty the nuisance will continue. The rational for that is apparently that if the defendant is willing and able to abate the nuisance, it is unfair to award damages on the theory that the nuisance will continue. Which leads to the most common remedy for ongoing nuisances—abatement. A continuing nuisance is ongoing and can be abated at any time via injunction.
A prevailing plaintiff in both a permanent or continuing nuisance case may also be entitled to damages associated with their loss of use and enjoyment of their properties—e.g., for sleepless nights, stress, or inability to use portions of their property. And in rare cases, punitive damages are available, but only in cases where the plaintiff has been able to prove that defendant’s actions were malicious, oppressive, or fraudulent.
Trespass / Ejectment
Trespass most frequently occurs when a neighbor unlawfully enters or remains on another’s property without permission. But as was referenced earlier in this Guide, trespass doesn’t just relate to a physical entry by another person. Trespass also occurs if someone else places objects or structures on someone else’s land, or allows pets or water runoff to intrude.
So, if a neighbor has physically taken possession of or is wrongfully occupying part of someone else’s property (e.g., through an encroaching structure or unauthorized use), or has changed the grading in their yard to allow water to run onto someone else’s property, that homeowner would have a claim for trespass.
Ejectment is a related claim, and involves the removal of someone or something that is encroaching on someone else’s property. Since it’s similar to a trespass claim, they often go hand-in-hand, although you most often see ejectment actions in property line disputes or prescriptive easement claims.
Defamation
Defamation occurs when a neighbor makes false statements that harm another’s reputation. This can take the form of libel (written defamation), such as false accusations in emails or HOA newsletters, or slander (spoken defamation), like spreading false rumors at community meetings. Subject to certain exceptions, defamation claims require proving that the statement was false, published to others, and caused harm.
Although beyond the scope of this Guide, defamation lawsuits must be approached carefully due to California’s powerful and complex anti-SLAPP laws.
Invasion of Privacy
Invasion of privacy occurs when a neighbor intrudes into another’s private affairs, publicly discloses private information, or misappropriates someone’s likeness for personal gain. In neighbor disputes, common examples include unauthorized surveillance (e.g., security cameras aimed into private areas like bedrooms or backyards), spreading sensitive personal information, or physically spying on someone’s home activities.
California law recognizes multiple forms of privacy violations, including intrusion upon seclusion and public disclosure of private facts. If a neighbor’s actions are highly offensive and unreasonable, a homeowner may seek injunctive relief and damages for emotional distress or reputational harm.
Negligence
A negligence claim is appropriate in situations where a neighbor fails to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm to another person or their property. Unlike intentional torts like trespass or nuisance, negligence is based on carelessness rather than deliberate misconduct.
Common examples include failing to maintain a dangerous tree that falls onto a neighbor’s property, allowing water runoff to flood an adjacent lot, or leaving hazardous conditions that cause injury (such as a broken fence allowing pets to escape and cause harm).
Quiet Title
A quiet title action is used to resolve disputes over property ownership or boundary rights and to establish clear legal title against competing claims. Homeowners typically file quiet title lawsuits in cases involving encroachments, easements, adverse possession claims, or unclear property boundaries.
For example, if a neighbor builds a structure that extends onto another’s property and claims ownership over that portion of land, the rightful owner may file a quiet title action to remove any cloud on their title. If successful, the court issues a ruling that confirms the homeowner’s legal ownership and eliminates any competing interests.
Declaratory Relief
A declaratory relief action allows a homeowner to ask the court to clarify legal rights and obligations. Unlike other claims that seek damages or enforcement, declaratory relief provides a binding legal determination on an issue, preventing future uncertainty.
Causes of action for declaratory relief are often used in property line and easement disputes. For example, if neighbors disagree over whether an easement allows driveway access, one of the neighbors might file a claim for declaratory relief so that the court would rule on each party’s respective rights and obligations.
In the HOA context, declaratory relief claims often appear in cases involving rule enforcement or the proper interpretation of provisions of the governing documents.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
A claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”) arises when a neighbor engages in outrageous conduct that is intended to cause, or recklessly disregards the likelihood of causing, severe emotional distress. To succeed with an IIED claim, the behavior must be extreme—i.e., beyond mere rudeness or unfair enforcement of rules.
IIED claims in HOA disputes are rarely successful because courts require conduct so egregious that it shocks the conscience—not just harassment, selective enforcement, or indifference. Unless a neighbor or board member engages in threats, stalking, or highly abusive conduct, most disputes over HOA enforcement, nuisances, or rule violations do not meet the high legal threshold.
While IIED claims can provide a path to compensation for significant harm, their use should be approached with caution because of the likelihood of invasive discovery and public scrutiny.
Waste
A claim for waste arises when a property owner or occupant damages, neglects, or improperly uses another’s property, reducing its value or causing harm to another’s interest in it. Waste is most commonly brought in disputes involving shared property, common walls, easements, or co-owned land.
For example, if a neighbor allows a shared fence or party wall to fall into severe disrepair, or an HOA fails to maintain community landscaping, the affected homeowner may have grounds for a waste claim. Waste can be permissive (neglecting maintenance) or voluntary (actively damaging property), and courts may order repairs, damages, or other remedies to restore the property.
Conversion
Conversion occurs when a neighbor wrongfully takes, uses, or destroys another’s personal property without permission, effectively depriving the owner of its use. Unlike trespass, which involves real property (land), conversion applies to tangible personal property such as furniture, tools, vehicles, or even landscaping features.
In neighbor disputes, conversion may arise if a neighbor removes or destroys a shared fence, cuts down trees on someone else’s property, or takes and refuses to return personal belongings.
Assault & Battery
Assault and battery are distinct but related claims that arise when a neighbor dispute escalates into physical violence or threats of harm. Assault occurs when someone intentionally places another in reasonable fear of imminent harm. Battery involves actual physical (and unwanted) contact, such as shoving, punching, spitting, or throwing an object at someone.
These claims are both civil and criminal offenses, meaning a victim can sue for damages (medical costs, emotional distress, punitive damages) while the offender may also face criminal prosecution.
Violation of Statutes
This is sort of a nebulous type of “cause of action” that is based on another’s violation of a particular statute. Dog bites and destruction of trees are just two examples.
Dog Bites
California Civil Code section 3342 imposes strict liability on dog owners when their dog bites someone. This means that the victim does not need to prove negligence. If a neighbor’s dog bites a person in a public place or while lawfully on private property, the owner is automatically liable for injuries, regardless of whether the dog had a history of aggression.
Unlike other states with a “one-bite rule,” California law holds owners responsible even if it’s the first bite. Exceptions apply if the victim was trespassing or provoking the dog. Of course, a neighbor suing for such a claim would almost always also sue for negligence (unless the neighbor sent the dog on the other person, in which case it would fall under battery, and possibly even IIED).
Destruction of Someone Else’s Trees
California Civil Code section 3346 provides enhanced damages for wrongful injury or removal of trees on another person’s property. If, for example, a neighbor cuts, damages, or removes trees, shrubs, or timber from someone else’s land without permission, the law presumes harm and allows the injured party to seek double or even triple damages in some cases.
This statute is particularly relevant in property line disputes or when a neighbor unlawfully trims or removes someone else’s trees to, for example, improve their view or expand their use of land.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
Neighbor disputes are an unfortunate reality of living in close proximity to others, particularly in densely populated areas like California. As this Guide has explored, these disputes can range from minor annoyances, such as excessive noise or overgrown trees, to serious legal conflicts involving trespass, harassment, defamation, and property destruction. While many of these conflicts can be resolved through informal communication, mediation, or HOA intervention, others may necessitate legal action to protect property rights and personal well-being.
California law provides a robust framework of legal claims and remedies to address neighbor disputes, from nuisance and trespass to defamation and invasion of privacy. However, navigating these laws effectively requires an understanding of the nuances of each claim, including the burden of proof, available defenses, and potential remedies. In HOA-governed communities, additional complexities arise, as disputes may implicate not only individual homeowners but also the association itself, particularly when HOAs fail to enforce their governing documents fairly and consistently.
The key takeaway is that resolving neighbor disputes requires a strategic and measured approach. Open communication, knowledge of legal rights, and—when necessary—the willingness to pursue legal remedies can help protect property interests and preserve community harmony. While Robert Frost famously wrote that “good fences make good neighbors,” it is equally true that good laws, fair enforcement, and reasonable expectations are essential to maintaining peace in shared living environments.