Mohr v. Midas Realty Corporation
431 N.W.2d 380 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Iowa law, a landowner does not have a cause of action in private nuisance for the interference with or obstruction of their view over an adjacent private property when the obstruction is caused by a lawfully constructed building.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs Erick and Miriam Mohr own an office building on a commercial lot located on Highway 20 in Fort Dodge, Iowa.
- Defendants Midas Realty Corporation and Stan and Lynn Building Partnership (collectively Midas) own the adjoining lot to the west of Mohr's property.
- In 1983, Midas constructed a muffler shop on the front portion of its property.
- The new Midas building fully complied with all applicable zoning restrictions and setback lines.
- The location and construction of the muffler shop block the view of Mohr’s building for traffic approaching from the west on Highway 20.
Procedural Posture:
- Mohr sued Midas in the Iowa district court (trial court), alleging private nuisance and seeking damages and an abatement.
- Midas filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Mohr's petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The district court granted Midas's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Iowa law provides no cause of action in nuisance for interference with a view of property, and dismissed Mohr's petition.
- Mohr (as appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Iowa.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a lawfully constructed building that obstructs the view of an adjacent commercial property constitute an actionable private nuisance under Iowa law?
Opinions:
Majority - Neuman, J.
No, a lawfully constructed building that obstructs the view of an adjacent property does not constitute an actionable private nuisance. While a private nuisance is a substantial and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of land, this protection only extends to legally protected interests. A landowner's interest in an unobstructed view over neighboring private property is not a legally protected interest in Iowa. The court reasoned that recognizing such a claim would be functionally equivalent to granting a prescriptive easement for view, a concept long repudiated in American law as it is inconsistent with the needs of a developing country. Allowing nuisance claims for view obstruction would severely restrict landowners' rights to use their property, create conflicts with established zoning ordinances, undermine the certainty provided by property recording statutes, and lead to a flood of litigation, as nearly every new construction project obstructs someone's view. The court distinguished this case from recent nuisance claims for obstruction of sunlight for solar energy, noting the unique public policy considerations supporting solar access are not present in a claim for obstruction of a commercial view.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the traditional American common law rule that landowners have no inherent right to a view across their neighbors' property. By refusing to expand the doctrine of private nuisance to include interference with view, the court prioritizes the free development and use of land over aesthetic interests. The ruling provides certainty for landowners and developers, ensuring that compliance with zoning laws will generally protect them from nuisance liability for view obstruction. The court's distinction regarding solar access cases (like Prah v. Maretti) is significant, as it leaves the door open for nuisance law to evolve in response to new technologies and public policies, while maintaining the traditional rule in most other contexts.
Unlock the full brief for Mohr v. Midas Realty Corporation