## Facts

- Spur Industries, Inc. operated a cattle feedlot in a rural, agricultural area in Maricopa County, Arizona, where similar agricultural uses existed nearby.
- Del E. Webb Development Co. developed Sun City, a large retirement community, and expanded residential development toward Spur’s feedlot.
- As the residential area grew, odors and flies associated with the feedlot affected existing residents and impaired the marketability of nearby residential lots.
- Webb sued to permanently enjoin the feedlot, alleging the operation made approximately 1,300 residential lots unfit for residential use due to odor and flies.
- The trial court found the feedlot to be a nuisance, permanently enjoined operations near Sun City, and awarded certain damages implicated on cross-appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether a lawful feedlot operation may be enjoined as a nuisance after surrounding land use changes due to nearby residential development.
2. If an injunction is proper, whether the developer who expanded residential settlement toward the feedlot must indemnify the feedlot operator for reasonable relocation or shutdown costs.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court held the feedlot had become a public nuisance (and also a private nuisance as to affected property owners) in the now-populous area adjacent to Sun City.
- The court affirmed issuance of an injunction requiring Spur to cease operating the feedlot at that location.
- The court held equity required Webb to indemnify Spur because Webb’s development brought residents to the area and precipitated the conflict.
- The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for determination of the reasonable amount of indemnification.

## Legal Principles

- A business lawful when established may become a nuisance when changed conditions make its operation interfere materially with the health, safety, or comfort of a community.
- A public nuisance involves interference affecting a considerable number of people or a community; a private nuisance involves interference with a definite, limited number of persons’ use and enjoyment of land.
- “Coming to the nuisance” does not bar relief where a public nuisance is found; the public interest in abatement may justify injunctive relief.
- A court of equity may condition an injunction on the plaintiff’s payment of indemnification when the plaintiff’s development foreseeably created the circumstances rendering a previously lawful use a nuisance.
- Indemnification is limited to reasonable costs of relocation or cessation attributable to the injunction.

## Conclusion

The court enjoined the feedlot as a public nuisance in a newly populous area but required the developer that expanded residential settlement toward the preexisting agricultural operation to compensate the feedlot for reasonable costs of moving or shutting down.


Spur Indus., Inc. v. Del E. Webb Dev. Co., 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972)