Opinion ID: 1379909
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Is Loss of Visibility Due to the Earth Berms Compensable?

Text: As a general matter, a landowner cannot recover from a neighboring landowner simply because he dislikes the use to which the second landowner put his property. Thus, a landowner could not recover from his neighbor just because the other had erected a building on his own property which blocked the view from the first owner's land, [1] or the visibility of the first owner's land. [2] The only way to prevent a neighbor from constructing a building which would block one's view is to buy an easement of view. Collinson, 778 P.2d at 536-37. The logical implication of this position is that a property owner has no right to an unobstructed line of vision to his property from anywhere off of his property, absent an easement of some sort. The record indicates, and Dimond D does not dispute, that the earth berms obstructing Block 2's visibility were built entirely on the railroad right of way. Although the tracks were raised as the result of a state project, this is irrelevant. The fact is that the railroad could have raised its tracks (or otherwise obstructed Block 2's visibility) for any legitimate reason, [3] and Dimond D would have no legal basis to complain. [4] Dimond D's mere ownership of Block 2 gives it no property interest in the railroad right of way, and therefore it has no legal basis for complaining about loss of visibility due to the earth berms.