Boxer v. City of Beverly Hills
Facts: A city plants redwood trees in a public park near a homeowner’s property. The trees eventually grow to obstruct the homeowner’s previously unobstructed view.
Claim: The homeowner seeks money losses from the city due to the impairment of their view, claiming the city’s failure to trim the redwood trees constitutes a taking of their property since the property has been tangibly invaded by the obstructing trees.
Counterclaim: The city claims the homeowner’s loss of view is not sufficient to qualify as a taking since there is no right to an unobstructed view unless established by law or conditions, covenants and restrictions (CC&Rs).
Holding: A California court of appeals holds the impairment of view is not a taking and the homeowner may not recover money losses against the city since the impairment of view is merely a component of the taking requirement and is only considered when determining money losses once a physical taking has already been established. [Boxer v. City of Beverly Hills (April 26, 2016) __CA4th__]