Short answer
When someone enters your California land and cuts down, kills or damages your trees without permission, Civil Code §3346 and Code of Civil Procedure §733 generally require at least double your actual damages, unless the defendant relied on a licensed survey, and allow treble damages if the cutting was willful and malicious. Actual damages can be the reasonable cost of restoring or replacing the trees, not just the drop in the property’s market value. A §3346 claim must be filed within five years of the trespass. Damage done from the other side of the line, such as trenching through roots next door, may be ordinary negligence with no multiplier and a shorter deadline.
A crew clears a hillside lot next door and takes out a row of your mature oaks along with it. A developer’s grading contractor pushes past the survey stakes. A tree service hired to open up someone else’s view tops the redwoods that shaded your house. A line-clearance crew takes far more than the power lines required. Mature trees take decades to grow, and California law treats their wrongful destruction more seriously than ordinary property damage.
What the law says
Two statutes, both dating back to California’s first codes, work together:
- Civil Code §3346(a): for wrongful injury to or removal of “timber, trees, or underwood upon the land of another,” damages are three times the actual detriment. They are twice the actual detriment where the trespass was “casual or involuntary,” or the defendant had probable cause to believe the land was his own or belonged to the person who directed the work. Only actual damages are owed where highway officers took wood to repair a public road or bridge.
- Code of Civil Procedure §733: anyone who cuts down, carries off, girdles or otherwise injures a tree on another person’s land “without lawful authority” is liable to the owner for treble damages.
Courts read the two together. In practice that produces three tiers: for a willful and malicious trespass the court may treble the damages and must at least double them; for a casual or involuntary trespass it must double them; and for cutting under official authority, only actual damages are owed (Ostling v. Loring (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1731, 1742, quoting Drewry v. Welch (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d 159, 181). The statute’s word “underwood” reaches shrubs and saplings, and the law is not limited to trees with value as lumber (Heninger v. Dunn (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 858, 868).
One limit applies regardless. Under §3346(b), a defendant who relied on a survey by a licensed land surveyor, which the defendant (or the defendant’s principal, lessor or immediate predecessor in title) ordered and which put the boundary in the wrong place, owes only actual damages.
Double or treble: which applies
Doubling is mandatory; trebling is up to the judge. Once the owner proves a wrongful cutting covered by the statute, the court must at least double the damages (Baker v. Ramirez (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1123, 1138), unless the defendant relied on a licensed survey (§3346(b)). Trebling requires a finding that the trespass was willful and malicious, and even then it is discretionary (Ostling, at p. 1742). Trebling was upheld where the trial court found the conduct willful and malicious (Salazar v. Matejcek (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 634, 645–646), and denied where the defendants believed the tree was theirs and a safety hazard (Kallis v. Sones (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1274, 1277).
The statutes cover “timber trespass,” not every kind of harm to a tree. The California Supreme Court has held that §3346 targets direct, intentional injury to trees by a person who enters another’s land personally or through an agent or instrumentality, not trees burned by a fire that negligently escaped from next door (Scholes v. Lambirth Trucking Co. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1094, 1100, 1110). Applying that rule, the Court of Appeal threw out a trebled award against a contractor-owner whose workers, trenching on his own lot, cut the roots of a pine on the property line and killed it; the neighbors recovered only un-multiplied negligence damages (Russell v. Man (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 530, 533, 536–537).
That distinction matters in construction cases. A crew that walks onto your lot and cuts is the classic multiplier case; root damage from trenching next door may be negligence only.
Who can be liable. The person who cut, and often the person who hired and directed the cutting. In Rony v. Costa (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 746, 752, the trial court held a homeowner vicariously liable for a day laborer he hired, who climbed into the neighbor’s cypress and cut it.
When a utility or its tree contractor does the cutting. Utilities must keep vegetation away from power lines. The CPUC’s General Order 95, Rule 35, sets minimum clearances, and in mountainous, forest-, brush- or grass-covered land Public Resources Code §4293 requires clearances of four to ten feet depending on voltage and the felling or trimming of dead, decayed or leaning trees that could fall on a line. Many utilities also hold easements over the land. So the key question is usually whether the cutting went beyond what the clearance rules or the easement allowed. Both the utility and its contractor can be defendants, and claims against a utility often draw an early challenge to the complaint, such as a demurrer. The work orders, the easement’s terms and photos of what was left standing tend to decide these cases.
What the owner has to prove
- The trees were on your land. A tree belongs to the owner of the land where its trunk stands, even if the roots reach next door (Civil Code §833). A tree whose trunk straddles the line belongs to both owners in common (§834). Where the line is disputed, a survey is usually the first piece of evidence.
- The defendant caused the cutting, personally or through workers the defendant hired or directed, without your permission or other lawful authority.
- The amount of the actual loss. This usually takes expert testimony from a consulting arborist or appraiser, who may value the trees using a replacement-cost approach or the “trunk formula” method from the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers’ Guide for Plant Appraisal. Courts weigh competing expert methods and may pick a figure between them (Rony, at pp. 754–756).
- The defendant’s state of mind, if you are asking for treble damages: warnings ignored, objections overridden, stakes or fences moved, a motive such as a view or a faster build. It is also worth checking whether the defendant had any permit the local tree ordinance required.
What you can recover
There is no single formula. Diminution in market value is one measure, but it is not a ceiling. If the owner has a personal reason to restore the property, a court may award the reasonable cost of restoring it to a reasonable approximation of its former condition, even if that exceeds the drop in value (Heninger, at pp. 862–866). The cost must be reasonable in relation to the harm and the land’s value, so replanting saplings or a few mature trees may be the answer where replacing a whole stand is not (id. at pp. 865–866). Where the owners were likely to replace a large shade tree, the Court of Appeal affirmed restoration costs including installation and aftercare, all doubled (Kallis, at pp. 1280–1281).
- Lost beauty and shade. The fact-finder may award damages for lost aesthetics and function, such as shade, character and privacy (Rony, at p. 755).
- Annoyance and discomfort. An owner in immediate and personal possession of the property (typically, living there) may recover for the annoyance and discomfort the trespass caused, and those damages are multiplied too (Fulle v. Kanani (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 1305, 1308, 1313).
- The multiplier applies to the whole award of compensatory damages the court finds, whatever measure is used (Heninger, at p. 869; Baker, at p. 1138).
- Punitive damages or the multiplier, not both. Because the doubling and trebling are themselves penal, a court should not double or treble damages if it also awards punitive damages under Civil Code §3294 (Baker, at pp. 1138–1139). Punitive damages require clear and convincing proof of oppression, fraud or malice (§3294(a)).
- Attorney’s fees usually are not recoverable. Each side generally pays its own lawyer unless a statute or contract says otherwise (Code of Civil Procedure §1021). The tree statutes contain no fee provision. One exception to watch: tree removal and pruning are contractor work in California (Business and Professions Code §7026.1(a)(4)), and an unlicensed person who causes damage by doing work that requires a license can be liable for treble damages (with the added amount capped at $10,000) and, in the court’s discretion, attorney’s fees (Code of Civil Procedure §1029.8). That statute reaches the unlicensed worker directly, not the homeowner who hired him (Rony, at pp. 750, 758).
A note on cost. Expert-driven tree cases are not cheap to try. When a single ordinary tree is at stake, litigation can cost more than it recovers, and mediation is often the better tool. A dispute with a neighbor over a single tree is usually better resolved through mediation. The statutes earn their keep where mature or protected trees, a stand of trees, or a cleared hillside drive the restoration cost into real money, and the multiplier then applies to that larger figure.
Deadlines
- Five years from the date of the trespass for an action under Civil Code §3346 (§3346(c); Scholes, at p. 1099).
- Three years for ordinary trespass on or injury to real property (Code of Civil Procedure §338(b)). If the facts turn out to be negligence from next door rather than timber trespass, as in Russell, the five-year period may not apply. Scholes itself was decided on that point: the owner had relied on §3346’s longer period and lost.
Do not plan around the longer deadline. Calendar from the date of the cutting and get advice early.
Local tree ordinances
Many California cities and counties protect trees on private land by size or species, require a permit to remove them, and treat damage that will foreseeably kill a tree, such as cutting roots or grading inside the dripline, the same as removal. The ordinances below are enforced by the city or county. None that we reviewed gives a private owner a right to sue under it; the fines and civil penalties go to the government. Your own damages claim rests on the state statutes above. Still, ask whether the person who cut your trees had the permit the local code required, and report unpermitted removal to the city or county.
| Jurisdiction | What is protected | Penalties (public enforcement) |
|---|---|---|
| San Jose (Mun. Code ch. 13.32; heritage trees §§13.28.220, 13.32.140) | Any tree on private land with a trunk of 38 inches or more in circumference at 54 inches above grade; city-listed heritage trees. Removal permit required; replacement trees are a permit condition. | Administrative citations and fines set by council resolution. Heritage trees: civil penalty up to $30,000 per tree under §13.28.220(B), collected by the City Attorney. |
| Santa Clara County, unincorporated (Ord. Code Div. C16) | Only in designated areas (for example, Hillside-zoned parcels of 3 acres or less, “-d” design review districts, the Los Gatos Hillside Specific Plan area): trunks of 12 inches in diameter or more at 4.5 feet, plus heritage trees. | Civil penalty of $5,000 per tree; misdemeanor with restitution; heritage trees $10,000 to $200,000 per tree; may be required to plant ten replacement trees for each one unlawfully removed (§C16-17(e)). |
| Sunnyvale (Mun. Code ch. 19.94) | Any tree on private land with a trunk of 38 inches or more in circumference at 4.5 feet (multi-trunk trees: 113 inches combined). Removal permit from Community Development; damaging or killing a protected tree is unlawful. | In a City Attorney action, $10,000 to $50,000 per tree destroyed or improperly removed, and $5,000 to $25,000 per tree substantially damaged; administrative fines and replacement landscaping (§19.94.160). |
| Palo Alto (Mun. Code ch. 8.10) | Listed native species such as coast live oak and valley oak at 11.5 inches in diameter; coast redwood at 18 inches; most other species at 15 inches (measured at 54 inches). | Misdemeanor; up to a five-year development moratorium; in a city lawsuit, the greater of $10,000 or twice the tree’s reproduction cost for each tree removed (§§8.10.100, 8.10.110). |
| Los Gatos (Town Code §§29.10.0950–.1050) | On developed residential lots, trunks of 12 inches in diameter or more; 8 inches for hillside lots and listed natives such as blue oak and madrone. | Civil penalty up to the greater of $5,000 or the tree’s replacement value per tree; four times the tree’s value if the removal relates to development (§29.10.1025). |
| City of Los Angeles (LAMC §§46.00–46.06) | Native oaks (except scrub oak), Southern California black walnut, western sycamore and California bay, plus Mexican elderberry and toyon shrubs, at 4 inches in cumulative diameter at 4.5 feet. Removal permit from the Board of Public Works. | Misdemeanor (LAMC §11.00(m)); building permits may be withheld for up to ten years after an illegal removal (§46.06). |
| Los Angeles County, unincorporated (Code ch. 22.174) | Any oak with a trunk of 8 inches in diameter or more at 4.5 feet (multi-trunk rules apply), including damage inside the tree’s protected zone. Oak Tree Permit required. | Misdemeanor; each tree a separate offense (§§22.174.110, 22.242.030). |
| San Francisco (Public Works Code art. 16) | Street trees; “significant” trees on private land within 10 feet of the public right-of-way that meet size tests; designated landmark trees. | Administrative penalty of the greater of $10,000 or the tree’s replacement value for each tree removed without a permit (§811(c)). |
Ordinances change. Check the current code for your property’s city or county.
Why California protects trees
The courts have explained the state statutes plainly. The multipliers are meant to make taking someone else’s timber unprofitable (Heninger, at p. 868). In the words the Supreme Court adopted, the purpose is to “educate blunderers” who mistake boundary lines and “discourage rogues” who ignore them (Scholes, at p. 1110). Doubling even honest mistakes pushes people to find out where the line is before the saws start.
Local ordinances speak to the community’s interest: San Jose cites scenic beauty, erosion control, stormwater and property values (Mun. Code §13.32.010), and Los Angeles County calls its oaks “significant historical, aesthetic, and ecological resources” (§22.174.010).
What to do first
- Photograph and video everything before cleanup: the cut trees, the remaining trunks and stumps, debris, equipment, tire tracks, and the view from inside your home. Date your photos.
- Keep the stumps, logs and debris in place if you safely can. They show the trunk diameters, species and location an arborist will need.
- Write down what you saw: who was there, the company name on the truck, and any earlier warnings or objections.
- Hire a consulting arborist to document and value the loss, and get a survey or map showing where each tree stood, especially if the boundary is in any doubt.
- Check permits. Ask the city or county whether a tree-removal or grading permit was issued. Many cities let you search permit history online; Sunnyvale, for example, has a public permit records search. Report unpermitted work.
- Send a written demand and preservation notice to the people and companies involved, preferably through counsel.
- No self-help. Do not retaliate or remove the other side’s property.
How Jimmy can help
Jimmy Nguyen represents California property owners in claims against contractors, developers, tree services, and utilities and their line-clearance contractors, who cut or kill mature or protected trees: lot clearing before a sale or build, view clearing, and grading that crossed the line. That work includes lining up arborist and survey evidence, identifying everyone responsible, and pressing the multiplied damages claim through negotiation, mediation or suit.
Tree damage claims are part of Jimmy’s California real estate litigation practice.
Time matters. Evidence disappears quickly once a crew hauls away the wood and grinds the stumps. Write out what was cut, when, where the property is, and who did it — a few sentences is plenty. Email jimmy@lawjn.com or use the form below for a free case evaluation.