Many property owners are unaware of where their property legally begins and ends which can lead to property line disputes. In residential areas, owners often rely on historical use or the location of fences, especially when surveys are not conducted during property transactions. In Wang v. Peletta (112 Cal.App.5th 478 (2025)), a survey revealed that a large portion of Peletta’s neighbor’s (Wang) retaining wall encroached onto Peletta’s property. Further investigation revealed the wall was built without permits, violating county code, and Peletta refused to allow Wang access to make necessary repairs. Wang claimed that they had an easement for the wall to remain on the Peletta’s property and related access rights to make the repairs, which the lower court denied and Wang appealed.
Initially, Wang argued they had acquired a prescriptive easement through continuous and open use of the property. A prescriptive easement requires the claimant to prove (1) use for five years, (2) open and notorious use, (3) continuous and uninterrupted use, (4) use hostile to the owner, and (5) under a claim of right. The court in Wang ruled that even if these elements were met, Wang did not acquire a prescriptive easement because the wall violated county law and constituted a public nuisance. According to legal precedent, a prescriptive easement cannot be granted for property used in a public nuisance where the action is brought by a citizen who has suffered special injury in consequence thereof. Wang contended that this rule applied only to continuing and not permanent public nuisances. They argued the wall was a permanent encroachment and the three (3) year statute of limitations for nuisance claims had expired. However, the court in Wang disagreed, ruling the nuisance could be abated by the nature of the notice of violation requiring abatement (either by bringing the wall into compliance or removing it entirely). Therefore, it was deemed a continuing nuisance rather than a permanent one. As such, the statute of limitations did not apply and the prescriptive easement denied.
Wang then alleged that if the easement was not obtained by prescriptive use the court should grant an equitable easement out of fairness. A court has discretion to grant an equitable easement if the person seeking the easement evidences all three elements: (1) the trespass was innocent and not willful or negligent, (2) the easement will not cause irreparable injury to the public or the property owner and (3) the hardship to the trespasser from denying the easement is greatly disproportionate to the property owner’s from the continuance of the easement. Courts approach the issuance of equitable easements with an abundance of caution and resolve doubtful cases against the easement. Here, the court found that the encroachers were aware that permits were required to build the wall, so the trespass was not innocent. With the first condition unmet, the court denied the equitable easement without considering the other factors.
The Wang v. Peletta case highlights key points about prescriptive and equitable easements. It confirms that an easement cannot be granted for property used in violation of law (such as a public nuisance), but does not clarify whether private nuisances can ever ripen into easements. The case also clarifies the distinction between permanent and continuing nuisances—if a structure is possibly removable, the nuisance may be considered continuous and the statute of limitations for nuisance claims never runs. Property owners should be aware of the potential legal consequences if their structures encroach on neighboring property and consider whether their encroachments could be classified as continuing nuisances.
Authored by Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP Partner, Lindsay Petrone.
The issues discussed in this update are not intended to be legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is established with the recipient. Readers should consult with legal counsel before relying on any of the information contained herein. Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP is a full service real estate law firm. We specialize in land use, development and entitlement law. We also provide a wide range of transactional services, including leasing, acquisitions and sales, formation of limited liability companies and other entities, lending/workout assistance, subdivision and condominium work.
