Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-03-26
APARTMENT HOUSES
A Problem Confronting Peo-
pie in Large Cities.
LAND OWNERS RIGHTS
AND THE RIGHTS OF OWNERS OF
ADJOINING LOTS.
The Question Discussed From a Legal
and Moral Standpoint at
Some Length.
LAND OWNERS RIGHTS

Written for The Sunday Star.
The rapid growth of apartment houses in
our large cities Is bringing forward some
istration. 1t is difficult to determine at once
the rights of the owner Of land who pur-
poses putting up such a house as against
the rights of the adjoining owner. The
decisions of the courts hitherto rendered.
in cases of conflicting rights of owners Of
adjoining real estate, do not reach the full
requirements Of this new condition.
Usually one who owns the soil has the
right to enjoy it in perpendicular direction
as far as he chooses. AS the latin phrase
has 1t, he owns "usque ad coelum." In the
absence of any law or municipal regulation
forbidding 1t he can build as high as his
purse may afford.
Ownership Of city lot, it must be re-
membered, carries with 1t peculiar obliga-
lions to those who own lots upon either
side, to say nothing of street and alley.
That a man may not use his own to the
injury of another we all know to be an ele-
mentary principle. The right of adjacent
owners to the enjoyment Of light and air
is privilege whose extent has been defined
fairly well The moral law of doing as one
would be done by lies at the foundation OF
the settled principles in this regard.
An owner may not erect structure on
his land that endangers the safety or the
health Of his neighbor. How far he may
deprive that neighbor Of sunshine. OF light
and OF the benefit OF a breeze in summer,
and of good fresh air at any season, Is
question that has been answered In terms
that apply to buildings heretofore in use
in cities. His right extends just SO far as
1t may be necessary for the reasonable en-
joyment by him Of his own premises What
Is reasonable often proves to be puzzling
obliged to go back to a determination OF
what. In the circumstances Of each case.
constitutes "a reasonable enjoyment"
We do not tolerate the presence Of a
noisy manufacturing plant in the middle of
a residence portion Of the city; livery
stables. no matter how well kept, are not
to be seen in among expensive and fash
ionable houses. These uses of property are
not agreeable In the particular locality.
They are well enough in proper place,
but here they would be nuisances. To keep
a lot for such purpose is forbidden. be-
cause In that vicinity the owner may justly
be regarded as using his land to the injury
of another. The fact that he can go away
Into some distant portion of the city, and
carry on his occupation there without great
inconvenience to the neighborhood. makes
the latter use reasonable, which use was un
In the former locality.
1t well may be that the livery stable
keeper could have made more money had
he been permitted to carry on his business
nearer the residences of some of his pa
irons. but the use Of his land in that neigh
borhoOd for such purpose Is declared to be
and, therefore, Is unlawful.
1t disturbs and annoys the neighbors, while
1t is not necessary for him to apply his land
to that use. Such use differs from the use
that Is made of all the other property in the
This latter quality is perhaps determin-
ing factor which brings the owner within
the rule that he must not use his property
to the injury Of his nefghbor. We shall
see presently that this factor is not without
Its value, when we come to inquire how far
the owner Of land in a residence district
may carry up the walls of his house, so as
to deprive the adjoining neighbors of sun
shine, light and air.
Certain Inconvenience every householder
must, of course. expect from the growth OF
a city neighborhood. A. buys vacant lot
and builds house thereon. He is bound to
take notice of the general features of the
locality. At his peril he must calculate
upon the changes that time is likely to
bring about. The street may some day be
given up to trade. Houses once rated as the
first Of their class may become unfashion-
able, and for this and like reasons be no
longer desirable.
The Risk Of Builder.
Next to AS house is a vacant lot, When
A. built his house lie took the risk of what
might be built next door. If 1t be of small
dimensions he had good reason to conclude
that he would never be disturbed by the
building of church there. II 1t be of large
area, and particularly If it be corner lot
If considerable depth A. ought to have been
aware that some enterprising Spectator
might buy that corner lot for the purpose of
putting up an apartment house.
Many people in Washington had pur-
49,, 1.,fl a.
before such a thing as the advent of apart
ment house construction was ever dream
ed of. 1t may be unfortunate for them
that tall structure is left out of their cal
culations, but the omission cannot alter the
rights of the parties.
A man builds dwelling house for himself
to live in. with his family. A capitalist
builds dwelling houses, singly or in rows,
which are to be let to tenants with their
families or sold. Where one buys lot
In a square in the residence portion Of a
city, and builds house there for his home,
he has the right, one would suppose, to as
sumo that other buildings in the square will
be substantially of class Of dwellings
like his own.
This right, however, IS subject to the limi-
tation that from time to time changes will
be made, more or less substantial in charac-
ter, in buildings suited to residence pur-
poses.
New burdens of housekeeping, some of
them due to the difficulty of dealing with
the Sery NJ question, nave created, OF late.
q desire to try the experiment of living in
fats. So we witness the running up OF
tall apartment houses, chiefly in front of
open spaces, or at avenue or street corners
This new style of building Is virtually one
dwelling house placed on top of another
carried up high in air.
A Latter-Day Invention.
As has already been said. 1t is nothing to
the point that our friend in his quiet home
had never imagined that such a piece of
as this latterday invention
would invade his neighborhood. The right
Of an owner of the great building to come
In and overshadow his neighbor is not de-
pendent upon what his neighbor may have
had just reason to expect some years ago.
His right Is to be tested by the reason
ableness of the use he attempts to make of
the land by placing high-storied building
thereon.
Unpleasant results coming from the prox-
unity of livery stable are in some re-
spects, different in kind from the injuries in
fiicted by towering wall that keeps or
light and ventilation. Though these uses Of
a lot differ little in character we shall find
often that the injury they work, both in
comfort and pecuniary loss. Is quite as pro-
In the one case as In the other.
Why. then, has the builder of a tall apart
ment house a right to use his land In this