Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 40.140 (2026)

Nuisance defined; action for abatement and damages; exceptions

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 40.140  Nuisance defined; action for abatement and damages; exceptions.

      1.  Except as otherwise provided in this section:

      (a) Anything which is injurious to health, or indecent and offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property;

      (b) A building or place used for the purpose of unlawfully selling, serving, storing, keeping, manufacturing, using or giving away a controlled substance, immediate precursor or controlled substance analog;

      (c) A building or place which was used for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing a controlled substance, immediate precursor or controlled substance analog and:

             (1) Which has not been deemed safe for habitation by the board of health; or

             (2) From which all materials or substances involving the controlled substance, immediate precursor or controlled substance analog have not been removed or remediated by an entity certified or licensed to do so within 180 days after the building or place is no longer used for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing a controlled substance, immediate precursor or controlled substance analog; or

      (d) A building or place regularly and continuously used by the members of a criminal gang to engage in, or facilitate the commission of, crimes by the criminal gang,

Ê is a nuisance, and the subject of an action. The action may be brought by any person whose property is injuriously affected, or whose personal enjoyment is lessened by the nuisance, and by the judgment the nuisance may be enjoined or abated, as well as damages recovered.

      2.  It is presumed:

      (a) That an agricultural activity conducted on farmland, consistent with good agricultural practice and established before surrounding nonagricultural activities is reasonable. Such activity does not constitute a nuisance unless the activity has a substantial adverse effect on the public health or safety.

      (b) That an agricultural activity which does not violate a federal, state or local law, ordinance or regulation constitutes good agricultural practice.

      3.  A shooting range does not constitute a nuisance with respect to any noise attributable to the shooting range if the shooting range is in compliance with the provisions of all applicable statutes, ordinances and regulations concerning noise:

      (a) As those provisions existed on October 1, 1997, for a shooting range in operation on or before October 1, 1997; or

      (b) As those provisions exist on the date that the shooting range begins operation, for a shooting range that begins operation after October 1, 1997.

Ê A shooting range is not subject to any state or local law related to the control of noise that is adopted or amended after the date set forth in paragraph (a) or (b), as applicable, and does not constitute a nuisance for failure to comply with any such law.

      4.  A request for emergency assistance by a tenant as described in NRS 118A.515 and 118B.152 does not constitute a nuisance.

      5.  As used in this section:

      (a) “Board of health” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 439.4797.

      (b) “Controlled substance analog” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 453.043.

      (c) “Criminal gang” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 193.168.

      (d) “Immediate precursor” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 453.086.

      (e) “Shooting range” means an area designed and used for archery or sport shooting, including, but not limited to, sport shooting that involves the use of rifles, shotguns, pistols, silhouettes, skeet, trap, black powder or other similar items.

      [1911 CPA § 562; RL § 5504; NCL § 9051]—(NRS A 1985, 873; 1997, 951, 1471, 1472; 2007, 3128; 2009, 825, 1309; 2017, 284)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2021 · leading case: Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Restaurant, 130 P.3d 1280 (Nev. 2006).
Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Restaurant, 130 P.3d 1280 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 2× “Edwards’ complaint alleged that transmitting the facsimile advertisement, without permission, violated the TCPA, NRS 40.140(1) (statutory nuisance), certain provisions of NRS Chapter 598 (state deceptive trade practices), and constituted intrusion, conversion, and private…”
Sowers v. Forest Hills Subdivision, 294 P.3d 427 (Nev. 2013). · cites it 2× “As such, we conclude that this evidence concerning the noise, diminution in property value, shadow flicker, and aesthetics far outweighs any potential utility of the proposed wind turbine within the Forest Hills Subdivision.”
Nye Cnty. v. Plankinton, 587 P.2d 421 (Nev. 1978). · cites it 4× “Whenever a written complaint is filed with the county clerk alleging the existence of a nuisance, as defined in NRS 40.140, within the county, the county clerk shall notify the board of county commissioners, who .”
Coughlin v. Tailhook Ass'n, Inc., 818 F. Supp. 1366 (D. Nev. 1993). “§ 40.140. This is an action concerning real property, and clearly is not implicated by the facts as alleged by Coughlin in her Complaint and Opposition papers.”
Snodgrass Vs. Bango Oil, Llc, 491 P.3d 735 (Nev. 2021). · cites it 2× “2d Nuisances § 33 (2021 update) ("A private nuisance is limited to interference with real property interests.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 40.140(1) — 3 cases
Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Restaurant, 130 P.3d 1280 (Nev. 2006). “Edwards’ complaint alleged that transmitting the facsimile advertisement, without permission, violated the TCPA, NRS 40.140(1) (statutory nuisance), certain provisions of NRS Chapter 598 (state deceptive trade practices), and constituted intrusion, conversion, and private…”
Sowers v. Forest Hills Subdivision, 294 P.3d 427 (Nev. 2013). “As such, we conclude that this evidence concerning the noise, diminution in property value, shadow flicker, and aesthetics far outweighs any potential utility of the proposed wind turbine within the Forest Hills Subdivision.”
Snodgrass Vs. Bango Oil, Llc, 491 P.3d 735 (Nev. 2021). “2d Nuisances § 33 (2021 update) ("A private nuisance is limited to interference with real property interests.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 40.140(1)(a) — 1 case
Snodgrass Vs. Bango Oil, Llc, 491 P.3d 735 (Nev. 2021). “2d Nuisances § 33 (2021 update) ("A private nuisance is limited to interference with real property interests.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 40.140(l)(a) — 1 case
Sowers v. Forest Hills Subdivision, 294 P.3d 427 (Nev. 2013). “As such, we conclude that this evidence concerning the noise, diminution in property value, shadow flicker, and aesthetics far outweighs any potential utility of the proposed wind turbine within the Forest Hills Subdivision.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.