By Keith Turner and Justin Escano

Fence, Tree, and Hedge Height Law

1. Is property subject to CCRs or other recorded property specific restrictions?
2. Local Zoning – local Municipal Code provisions
3. Spite fence law

1. ---

   Is property subject to CCRs or other recorded property specific restrictions?

First, obtain a title report.  Many properties, such as large areas north of Sunset Blvd. in Pacific Palisades, are subject to recorded CC&Rs (conditions, covenants, and restrictions), DORs (declarations of restriction) or similar recorded restrictions which limit heights of fences, trees, etc.  For instance, some of the Marquez Knolls CC&Rs limits boundary fences and walls to a height of three feet.   (Tract 2622, ¶14)

2. Local zoning – Municipal Code provisions

Many residential properties in California are subject to local fence, wall and hedge height ordinances, which often limit the height to six (6) or eight (8) feet in height.  These zoning law often defines the terms “fence” and “wall” to include: latticework, ornamental fences, screen walls, hedges or thick growths of shrubs or trees.

For instance,  Los Angeles Municipal Code §12 22.C.20.(f) provides: 

• FRONT YARD FENCES: in most residential areas, fences, hedges, trees are limited to 3.5′ in height in the front yard.
• SIDE YARDS, REAR YARDS AND OTHER SPACES: 6′ or 8′ depending on property’s zoning. For example:
  • 8 ft. maximum height – R zoned property, if lot width is 40 ft. or greater and not in hillside area.
  • 6 ft. maximum height – R zone if lot width is less 40 ft
  • 6 ft. maximum height – R zone, hillside area.

See LAMC §12.22.C.20.(f)(3) for full text of law and height limits in other property zones (which is below).

How measured?

• The Ordinance states: “Fence and wall height shall be measured from the natural ground level adjacent thereto.”
• BUT see LADBS, INFORMATION BULLETIN / PUBLIC – ZONING CODE

3. Spite Fence Law

What is a spite fence?

California spite fence law starts with Civil Code section 841.4. It states, “any fence or other structure in the nature of a fence unnecessarily exceeding 10 feet in height maliciously erected or maintained for the purpose of annoying the owner or occupant of adjoining property is a private nuisance.” The statute is not limited to traditional fences. In Wilson v. Handley (2002) 97 Cal.App.3d 1301, the Court of Appeals held that trees and hedges planted in a row to form a barrier may be deemed a spite fence. The court agreed in Vanderpol v. Star (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 385, finding that at row of pine trees planted along a neighbor’s boundary line could be considered a spite fence for the purposes of the statute.

The court in Wilson v. Handley expanded the definition of a “structure in the nature of a fence.” Defendants argued that a row of trees was a not a “structure”, and thus could not come under Section 841.4. The court, however, defined a fence as  a “structure … erected … to separate two contiguous estates,” and “a barrier intended … to mark a boundary.” Ultimately, the court concluded that, in light of the purpose of the spite fence statute, the term “fence” should be liberally construed. By this reasoning, other non-traditional fence-like structures may come under the California spite fence statute.

The Los Angeles Municipal Code has its own spite fence statute. LAMC Section 41.30 states, “”No person shall maliciously construct, erect, build, plant, cultivate or maintain any fence or wall or any hedge or similar growth unnecessarily exceeding six (6) feet in height, for the purpose of annoying the owners or occupants of adjoining property.”

NEXT STEPS

Keith Turner/the Turner Law Firm has handled hundreds of fence, wall, hedge and tree height disputes.  If you are interested in pursuing a claim or have to retain counsel to defend against a claim, please contact mm@turner.law to request an initial consultation.