## Facts

- Rick Sowers, a homeowner in the Forest Hills Subdivision in Washoe County, Nevada, planned to construct a 75-foot residential wind turbine on his lot.
- The Forest Hills Subdivision and neighboring owners Ann and Karl Hall sought to enjoin construction, alleging the turbine would unreasonably interfere with neighboring use and enjoyment.
- Plaintiffs asserted the turbine would generate constant noise, cause “shadow flicker,” obstruct views, and reduce surrounding property values.
- The district court heard lay and expert testimony, conducted a site visit to an existing similar turbine, and viewed Sowers’s and the Halls’ properties.
- The court found the turbine’s height and placement would visually dominate the Halls’ lower-lying property, obstruct existing views, and cast shadow flicker over their home.
- The district court credited evidence that the turbine would produce constant noise and that nearby property values would likely be diminished.
- The district court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting construction, concluding that the turbine would be a nuisance under the particular circumstances.

## Issues

1. Whether the proposed residential wind turbine would constitute a nuisance in fact, under the particular circumstances and surroundings, warranting a permanent injunction.
2. Whether aesthetic impacts alone can support a nuisance finding, or whether aesthetics must be considered with other harms such as noise, shadow flicker, and loss of property value.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported the district court’s nuisance finding and injunctive remedy.

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the permanent injunction prohibiting construction of the turbine.
- The court held that aesthetics alone are insufficient to establish nuisance.
- The court held that a nuisance in fact may be found where aesthetics combine with other factors, including noise, shadow flicker, and diminution in property value.
- The court concluded substantial evidence supported the district court’s findings, and the injunction was not an abuse of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- A “nuisance in fact” depends on the particular circumstances and surroundings and turns on whether the challenged activity would substantially and unreasonably interfere with neighboring use and enjoyment of property.
- Aesthetic displeasure, standing alone, does not constitute a nuisance.
- Aesthetic impacts may be considered as part of a nuisance analysis when accompanied by other concrete harms (including noise, shadow flicker, and likely reduction in property value).
- Appellate review defers to trial-level factual determinations where supported by substantial evidence, including findings informed by site visits and credibility assessments.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a permanent injunction against a residential wind turbine after determining that, in context, its combined visual dominance, noise, shadow flicker, and probable economic effects constituted a nuisance in fact; purely aesthetic objections were insufficient without additional harms.


Sowers v. Forest Hills Subdivision, 294 P.3d 427 (Nev. 2013)