If a neighbor’s tree is blocking the ocean view to three adjacent buildings, do these neighboring owners have the right to have the tree removed or trimmed at the tree owner’s expense? 

The answer to this question depends upon where the properties are located.  In a recent court case coming out of Tiburon in Marin County, owners of an apartment building sued their neighbors under a Tiburon law to compel restoration of their views.  The ordinance, entitled “View and Sunlight Obstruction from Trees,” grants property owners “the right to preserve and seek restoration of views or sunlight which existed at any time since they purchased or occupied a property, when such views or sunlight are from the primary living area or active use area and have subsequently been unreasonably obstructed by the growth of trees.”  In addition, “[n]o person shall plant, maintain, or permit to grow any tree which unreasonably obstructs the view from, or sunlight reaching, the primary living area….”  Owners of neighboring parcels who violate this act may be ordered to trim, thin, top, or even remove their offending trees. 

The California Court of Appeal upheld this legislation, declaring that local governments may protect views and provide for light and air.  See Kucera v. Lizza (1997) 59 Cal.App.4^th 1141.  However, the Court also noted that California law in general does not recognize a landowner’s right to air, light or an unobstructed view.  In other words, absent some specific city or county ordinance, a landowner may not have the right to compel a neighbor to trim trees that obstruct a view.

In a more recent case from Southern California, the Court of Appeal considered a similar voter-approved ordinance that limited the height of foliage on residential property so as to preserve hillside views.  A property owner who was required to trim eight of his trees sued the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.  In siding with the city, the Court held that the purpose of this law represented a legitimate exercise of traditional police power.  See Echevarrieta v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2001) 86 Cal.App.4^th 472. 

Northern California jurisdictions that have adopted some form of Tiburon’s view law include Albany, Atherton, Belvedere, Berkeley, Carmel, Fairfax, Hayward, Hillsborough, Lafayette, Livermore, Los Altos, Napa, Oakland, Orinda, Piedmont, Ross, San Anselmo, Santa Clara, and Walnut Creek.  Noticeably absent from this list is San Francisco.  Oddly, the town with the best views in the world lacks a specific ordinance that would compel owners to keep their trees trimmed.  However, with regard to construction, the City’s Planning Department may place appropriate conditions on the approval of a building permit to protect the light, air and view of adjacent properties.  Specifically, the City has prevented erection of large rooftop antennae, such as satellite dishes, when these objects pose a threat to neighboring properties’ views.  Yet without a specific tree-trimming law on the books, the owner with an obstructed view may have to rely on kindness instead of the courts.

DW