"Spite fences" serve no purpose other than to annoy
The saying goes that good fences make good neighbors; as long as each person respects the other's property, they'll get along. Unfortunately, some neighbors instead decide to use the fence as a weapon in a dispute with the homeowner next door.
One of the most famous examples of a so-called "spite fence" occurred in San Francisco, where wealthy railroad magnate Charles Crocker sought to acquire an entire city block on Nob Hill to build his mansion. One resident, Nicholas Yung, refused to sell, though some accounts suggest that he twice agreed to Crocker's offer before increasing the amount he would accept.
Annoyed, Crocker decided to cease his attempts to buy the stubborn homeowner's lot and wall him in instead. He hired railroad engineers to construct a 40-foot fence on his property to surround Yung's house, leaving it in the shadows for most of the day. The fence outlived both men, lasting until 1904 when their heirs finally settled the matter.
Modern spite fences are unlikely to be quite so spectacular, but the practice has persisted into the present day. A spite fence is typically defined as one which has been built with the intent of annoying a neighbor.
Spite fences can take many forms. They may be excessively high, perhaps built to block sunlight or views from a neighbor's home. They may be intentionally ugly, designed to convey disdain to the person next door. Even a row of tall trees or shrubs may be considered a spite fence in some circumstances.
A person who finds themselves hemmed in by a spite fence can sometimes find that they have few options for recourse. The American Bar Association says a neighbor may be able to persuasively argue that the fence was built for another reason, such as increased privacy. The American Planning Association, an urban planning organization, says courts have often been reluctant to restrict how a homeowner uses their land unless it actively or negligently harms an adjacent property. Even if a fence blocks breezes or light from reaching the property next door, it might not be considered a nuisance.
Several states, including Connecticut, have established state statutes to help minimize spite fence incidents. These statutes outline how a spite fence can be defined as well as what actions can be taken if a neighbor violates the statute.
Connecticut's statute defines a spite fence as one which is built with malice and has "no useful purpose but interferes with the plaintiff's enjoyment of his or her property." A person who feels their neighbor has built such a fence can file a lawsuit to seek relief.
However, there is also a high standard of proof to meet the statute's definition. According to the Connecticut General Assembly's Office of Legislative Research, a court must confirm six factors before agreeing that a barrier is a spite fence. A plaintiff needs to show that their neighbor is responsible for the erection of the fence, that it was put up out of malice, that it has no value to the neighbor, that it is intended to harm the plaintiff's enjoyment of the land, that it impairs the plaintiff's land value, and that it has had the actual effect of inhibiting the plaintiff's enjoyment of the land.
A plaintiff can better support their argument that a fence was put up with malicious intent if they have evidence to show that it is unnecessary. Brian Farkas, writing for the legal site Nolo, says this evidence may include photos and diagrams of the fence, the fact that a fence was erected after a dispute, or contemporaneous emails or other communications showing a neighbor's dislike for the plaintiff.
If the plaintiff wins the suit, the court will generally issue an injunction ordering the fence to be taken down. The American Bar Association says the court may alternatively order the neighbor to lower the height of the fence. The neighbor may also be ordered to pay damages, which will be based on factors such as diminished value of the property.
A person can also challenge a spite fence on other grounds. The American Planning Association says they may be able to prove that the fence violates local zoning provisions or presents a safety hazard, such as lack of visual clearance at the corners.
Neighbors may also be able to resolve the issue using mediation instead of a lawsuit. Farkas says this neutral third party can help address the underlying issues that led to the construction of the fence and help the parties find a mutually agreeable solution.