Tenn v. 889 Associates, Ltd.

New Hampshire Supreme Court · Property

PropertyPrivate nuisancePrescriptive easementsLight and airprivate nuisancelight and airancient lightsprescriptive easement

Facts

The plaintiff owned the Pickering Building, whose south side had upper-story windows, a glazed light shaft wall, and several room air conditioners facing the adjacent lot. The defendant, owner of the lot to the south, planned to demolish an existing four-story structure and build a six-story building up to the lot line, which would block those windows and require removal of the air conditioners. After learning of the plan months earlier and after demolition had begun, the plaintiff sued, alleging private nuisance from interference with light and air and claiming a prescriptive easement to keep the air conditioners projecting into the defendant's air space. The trial court found the interference not unreasonable or substantial and found no prescriptive easement.

Issue

Whether a neighboring landowner's lawful construction that blocks another owner's access to light and air can constitute a private nuisance under New Hampshire law, and if so whether the planned building did so here. The court also considered whether the plaintiff had acquired a prescriptive easement to maintain air conditioners protruding into the defendant's air space and whether denial of a continuance was error.

Rule

New Hampshire rejects recognition of a prescriptive right to light or air, but claims of interference with interests in light and air are evaluated under private nuisance law. Actionable private nuisance consists of a substantial and unreasonable interference with another's use and enjoyment of property, judged flexibly by balancing the threatened harm against the utility of the defendant's conduct to the defendant and the community. A prescriptive easement requires twenty years of adverse, continuous, uninterrupted use sufficient to give notice to the record owner that the claimant is exercising the right without regard to the owner's consent.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In downtown Providence, Lena Ortiz owns a century-old office building with side windows facing an adjacent parcel. Harbor Elm Development, LLC plans to build a taller office structure directly to the lot line, which will block most of those windows, but Lena's offices will still receive light from front-facing windows and an interior skylight.

If Lena sues to stop construction, which is the best statement of the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority rejected both extremes: it refused to recognize a prescriptive right to light or air, but also refused to adopt a categorical rule that obstruction of light and air can never be a nuisance. Instead, such claims are evaluated under ordinary private nuisance doctrine, requiring a substantial and unreasonable interference with use and enjoyment of land. (Derived from Tenn v. 889 Associates, Ltd. (n.d.).)