Retaining Wall Maintenance, Repair and Construction, California Law, and Neighbor Disputes

Retaining walls, structures which hold back or “retain” uphill land or earth are quite common in the Bay Area and elsewhere in California, due to our hilly terrain

Landowners seeking a flat spot or “pad” on which to build, or to have a flat yard, have often constructed such walls along or near property lines by making a cut or excavation into a hillside and then build a wall or other structure (maybe even part of building’s foundation) to hold back or retain the uphill earth, soil and rock.

Unfortunately some of the older walls were constructed without regard to or without knowledge of property line, and were poorly constructed based on the limited state of engineering technology at the time.

Sometimes the recent walls have been poorly designed, built or maintained, and are cracking, sagging or tipping precariously toward the downhill properties, are cracked, or have settled differentially, and are in danger of collapse.

Structural failures of retaining walls can sometimes cause a whole hillside to slide downhill, damaging several adjacent property structures, which movement may be very different to stop, to block, or constrain once such movement forces are put into motion and momentum accumulates.

Modern walls require Building Permits and City inspections to construct, walls over four (4’) feet tall (including the below ground portions) now must be designed by an engineer and subject to peer review, and are typically designed to resists movement, cracks or tipping with “toes”, tie- backs, “dead men”, reinforcing steel and drainage to relieve hydrostatic water pressure on the walls.

Responsibility for maintenance, repair and replacement of these walls usually depend on who built the wall, and whose property the wall is located.

The law in California typically is that whoever disturbed or changed the natural slope or lay of the land, including changes in the drainage pattern, is responsible for the consequences.

One who alters the natural condition of the land must insure that neighboring properties are not damaged.

A 2026 Court of Appeal decision reaffirmed these principles.

“Lateral support is the support received by a parcel of real property from the sides by adjacent pieces of real estate or, as in this case, a retaining wall. (Marin Municipal Water Dist. v. Northwestern Pac. R. Co. (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 83, 89, 61 Cal.Rptr. 520 [lateral support is the support provided along “ ‘a vertical plane’ ”]; Sager v. O'Connell (1944) 67 Cal.App.2d 27, 30, 153 P.2d 569 (Sager) [lateral support provided by “bulkhead”].)

“At common law every owner of land was entitled to lateral support of that land from every coterminous owner. This was an absolute right incident to the land itself.” (Wharam v. Investment Underwriters, Inc. (1943) 58 Cal.App.2d 346, 349, 136 P.2d 363 (Wharam).) Thus, a “coterminous owner who excavated upon his property, by the exercise of proper care and the application of proper means of support, was compelled to protect adjoining property in its natural state from sliding into the excavation.” (Wharam, at p. 349, 136 P.2d 363, italics added, citing Aston v. Nolan (1883) 63 Cal. 269; see also Green v. Berge (1894) 105 Cal. 52, 58, 38 P. 539 [“the adjoining lotowner who caused the excavation to be made would be responsible for any damage which might result, irrespective of the question of negligence in making the excavation” (italics added)].) This liability for excavation irrespective of negligence is referred to as strict liability. (Holtz v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1970) 3 Cal.3d 296, 301, fn. 3, 90 Cal.Rptr. 345, 475 P.2d 441 [“At common law a coterminous owner was strictly liable for damages resulting from the withdrawal of lateral support”].)” (Emphasis added).

Quinn v. Coulton (Cal. Ct. App., July 20, 2026, No. A172217) 2026 WL 2083795, at *4

“To summarize, under California common law, the default rule is that “the party whoremoves the [lateral] support is absolutely liable for damages caused by subsidence” and a subsequent owner will not be liable absent independent negligence. (Platts v. Sacramento Northern Ry., supra, 205 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1030–1031, 253 Cal.Rptr. 269; accord, Lee, supra, 175 Cal.App.3d at p. 569, 220 Cal.Rptr. 782; Sager, supra, 67 Cal.App.2d at p. 33, 153 P.2d 569.” (Emphasis added).

Quinn v. Coulton (Cal. Ct. App., July 20, 2026, No. A172217) 2026 WL 2083795, at *5.

Even if the current property owner - who subsequently acquired the property of the prior owner who built the wall - had no knowledge of or role in the wall’s construction, that successor owner must maintain the wall to ensure that it does not injure neighboring properties or collapse onto them.

“[N]o man may use his own property so negligently as to cause damage to or destructionof his neighbor's property. See section 832, Civil Code; Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Scott, 10 Cal.2d 581, at page 585, 75 P.2d 1054, at page 1056, and cases cited.’ . .

. In this case the excavation was made with due care and adequate precaution was taken to sustain respondent's property. The sole fault of appellants', if any exists, lies in negligently permitting the lateral support to weaken.  Section 817 of the Restatement of Torts is applicable: ‘* * * a person who withdraws the naturally necessary lateral support of land in another's possession, or support which has been substituted for the naturally necessary support, is liabl e for a subsidence of such land of the other as was naturally dependent upon the support withdrawn, in the absence of a superseding cause or other reason for relieving him.’ (Italics ours.) See Gorton v. Schofield, 311 Mass. 352, 41 N.E.2d 12, 139 A.L.R. 1262; Foster v. Brown, 48 Ont.L.R. 1, 10 B.R.C. 918" (Emphasis added)..

Sager v. O'Connell (1944) 67 Cal.App.2d 27, 32.

Older walls usually have to show no building permit records to show who caused it to be built it or who the contractor was, but this fact maybe be sometimes inferred from the circumstances of the development in the area.

Retaining walls built without building permits (if permits were required at the time of construction) may be considered a “public nuisance” and subject to removal or replacement by Court Order.

“That is because the wall and other encroachments were built without permits and as a result are—and have always been—a public nuisance subject to abatement.”

Wang v. Peletta (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 478, 487, review denied (Sept. 3, 2025)

Of course a defectively engineered or negligently constructed retaining wall may subject the engineer ot contractor to liability claims, subject of course to the limits of the applicable Statutes of Limitations. (See related article).

A “spotted” boundary line surveying showing locations of portions of the wall relative to the property line, surveying is usually necessary to determine on whose property the wall is located, as older walls were often built without good – or any - knowledge of the actual location of the property lines.

Rarely, in the case of older walls, and more frequently, in the case of more recently– constructed wells, there may be a recorded easement or covenant binding future owners of the properties, describing the wall, its location, permitted property line encroachments, and who has the responsibility for construction, repair, maintenance or replacement of the wall.

Check your chain of title in the County Recorder’s Office or look at your Title Insurance Policies to see if such covenants or easements are recorded in the chain of title of your property or the other adjoining land.

Retaining wall disputes sometimes result in expensive, lengthy and acrimonious disputes between neighbors.

The best advice is to approach such issues cooperatively, with an open mind, and a willingness to compromise, if appropriate.

If things cannot be worked out directly, use of an experienced neutral mediator (See related article) to help resolve the dispute can save everyone time and money, compared to a lawsuit, as mediation between reasonable persons is often successful.

Often a successful mediation or even litigation will result in the mutual recording of an easement or a covenant in the title of one both properties describing in respective obligations for future maintenance, repair, replacement and location of the wall, to avoid future disputes with later owners of either property, and to relieve the concerns of prospective purchasers of both properties.