This section is from the book "The Law Of Real Property and Other Interests In Land", by Herbert Thorn Dike Tiffany. Also available from Amazon: A Treatise on the Modern Law of Real Property and Other Interests in Land .
Apart from the protection given him by the recognition of these natural rights, the owner of land cannot complain of the use which is being made of adjoining or neighboring land, however such use may affect him in the enjoyment of his land,4 unless he has acquired a right restrictive of such use either by the creation of an easement in his favor, by a con-tract binding the neighboring landowner personally, or unless, in some states, such use is actuated by malice.4a Accordingly, one's neighbor can ordinarily use his land for any business whatever, provided it is not in its nature illegal, and it does not interfere with one of these natural rights;4b and so one may erect any structure upon his land, though, by reason of its unsightK-ness, it is repugnant to the feelings of the adjacent owner, and depreciates the value of his property.4c Likewise, the owner of land cannot object that his building is deprived of light by an erection on ad3g. Professor C. C. Langdell in 13 Harv. Law Rev. 665.
3h. Or some other equivalent of a grant for the purpose of creating an easement. See Post, Sec.Sec. 361-366.
4. See John Morris Co. v. Southworth, 154 111. 118, 39 N. E. 1099; Leavenworth Lodge No. 2 v. Byers, 54 Kan. 323, 38 Pac. 261; Garland v. Towne, 55 N. H. 55 20 Am. Rep. 164; Marshall v. Welwood, 38 N. J. Law 339, 20 Am. Rep. 394; Radcliff's Ex'rs v. City of Brooklyn, 4 N. Y. 195, 53 Am. Dec. 357; Booth v. Rome, W. & 0. T. R. Co. 140 N. Y. 267, 24 L. R. A.105, 37 Am. St. Rep. 552, 35 N. E. 592; Hummel v.
Seventh St. Terrace Co., 20 Ore. 401, 26 Pac. 277; Shearman & Redfield, Negligence, Sec.Sec. 17, 701.
4a. Post, Sec. 337.
4b. Westcott v. Middleton, 43 N. J. Eq. 478; Ex parte Whit-well, 98 Cal. 73, 35 Am. St. Rep. 152; Fisher v. Clark, 41 Barb. (N. Y.) 329; Cooney v. North Cent. Ry. Co., 180 App. Div. 675, 167 N. Y. Supp. 865; O'Leary v. Brooks Elevator Co., 7 N. D. 554; 2 Wood, Nuisances, Sec. 567.
4c. Falloon v. Schilling, 29 Kan. 292, 44 Am. Rep. 642; Duncan v. Hayes, 22 N. J. Eq. 25; Harrison v. Good, L. R. 11 Eq. 338.
R. P.-71 jacent land,4d that a view from his premises is cut off thereby,5 or that the view of his shop windows or signs by the public is so cut off.6 Nor can he object that windows are placed in a neighboring building so as to enable persons to look into his windows or yard, his only remedy being to construct a building or fence which will shut off the neighbor's view of his premises.