A landowner has no right to obstruct or deprive the light, air, and view of an adjoining owner by erecting buildings or other structures on his/her land.  The land owner is legally liable only for obstruction or deprivation of light, air and view which s/he was enjoying before such building or other structure was erected.  If there is any statute, easement or contract, then rights and liability of the obstructing landowner will be determined by such statute, easement or contract.

In, Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc., 114 So. 2d 357 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1959), a hotel corporation brought a suit against an adjoining hotel corporation from continuing with the construction of a 14-story addition to their hotel.  The hotel corporation claimed that the addition of building cast a shadow over the cabana, swimming pool, and sunbathing areas of their hotel.  The court applied the maxim, sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas and observed that, “The maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas does not mean that one must never use his own property in such a way as to do any injury to his neighbor.  It means only that one must use his property so as not to injure the lawful rights of another. Under this maxim, it is well settled that a property owner may put his own property to any reasonable and lawful use, so long as he does not thereby deprive the adjoining landowner of any right of enjoyment of his property which is recognized and protected by law, and so long as his use is not such a one as the law will pronounce a nuisance.” The court held that, since the adjoining hotel corporations have not injured other party’s lawful rights, they are not liable.

In common law, even if the adjoining owner purposefully obstructed the passage of light and air there is no legal injury.[i]

In, Stewart v. Secor Realty & Inv. Corp., 667 So.2d 52 (Ala. 1995), court observed that, persons constructing a house in city or town with a window opening upon the lot of an adjoining proprietor does not acquire a right to use his window so as to deprive the adjoining proprietor of the right to build on his lot according to his judgment or fancy.  However, a property owner is entitled to build a wall or building upon his/her grounds which obstructs and closes the windows of an adjoining owner.  Court in Hefazi v. Stiglitz, 862 A.2d 901 (D.C. 2004), observed that, the actual enjoyment of the air and light by the owner of the house is on his/her land only.  A person may obstruct his/her neighbor’s windows at any time.

In, Taliaferro v. Salyer, 162 Cal. App. 2d 685 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1958), the court held that, if a person has no right to light and air from the adjoining land he cannot claim damages when adjoining owners built structure that cut off the light and air.  Also, in the absence of easement of light and air, an adjoining owner cannot claim damages even if the obstructing building’s height is above than as permitted by a building ordinance.

 [i] Koblegard v. Hale, 60 W. Va. 37 (W. Va. 1906)