Can C recover for nuisance after acquiring vacant land near A's brick kiln, even if the kiln existed before C's purchase?

The correct answer emphasizes that C can recover for nuisance if improvements were made to the land after the purchase, highlighting the principle that changes to property can affect nuisance claims. When a property owner improves the land, the land may be used in a way that makes a nuisance more harmful or noticeable. If the brick kiln was a source of nuisance prior to C's ownership, improvements made by C could potentially increase the level of harm C experiences, thereby providing grounds for a claim.

In tort law, the doctrine of "coming to the nuisance" generally suggests that a property owner who knowingly purchases land next to an existing nuisance cannot typically recover damages for that nuisance. However, the concept of "improvement" can alter this dynamic, as enhancements can lead to increased harm or different uses that interact negatively with the nuisance. Thus, if C's improvements result in greater interference with the enjoyment of the property caused by the kiln, it creates a basis for recovery.

In contrast, other options do not align with the legal principles surrounding nuisance. The statement that C cannot recover for existing nuisances overlooks the possibility of changes to property use or condition. Similarly, saying recovery is conditioned solely on causing direct harm fails to account for the broader implications of nuisance law, which often considers