California Code of Civil Procedure § 731 specifically authorizes an action by any person whose property is injuriously affected, or whose enjoyment of property is lessened by a nuisance, as the same is defined in Civil Code § 3479. California Civil Code § 3479 defines a nuisance as “[anything] which is injurious to health, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property …” The statutory definition of nuisance is broad enough to encompass almost any conceivable type of interference with the enjoyment or use of land or property. (Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 919; see also Acadia California, Ltd. v. Herbert (1960) 54 Cal.2d 328, 337 [“It is settled that, regardless of whether the occupant of land has sustained physical injury, he may recover damages for the discomfort and annoyance of himself and the members of his family and for mental suffering occasioned by fear for the safety of himself and his family when such discomfort or suffering has been proximately caused by a trespass or a nuisance.”].)
Activities can be found to be an actionable nuisance if they interfere with the use and enjoyment of property. (See generally Oliver v. AT&T Wireless Services (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 521, 534 [“[T]he essence of a private nuisance is its interference with the use and enjoyment of land. The activity in issue must ‘disturb or prevent the comfortable enjoyment of property,’ such as … noise …”].)
Several courts have held that excessive noise which interferes with a neighboring property owner’s right to enjoy the use of his or her home constitutes an enjoinable nuisance. (See, e.g., Brewton v. Young (Ala. 1992) 596 So.2d 577 [noise and odor of dogs that interfered with neighbors’ enjoyment of their homes enjoined as private nuisance]; Connecticut v. Olson (Conn. 1986) 8 Conn.App. 188 [recognizing dogs that bark excessively are a nuisance]; Burnett v. Rushton (Fla. 1951) 52 So.2d 645 [purposefully inciting dog to bark boisterously constitutes private nuisance]; Allen v. Paulk (La. Ct. App. 1966) 188 So.2d 708 [early morning barking dog classified as nuisance; plaintiff entitled to injunction where defendant could prevent dog’s barking by keeping it in his house].)
