When one neighbor wants to use his land for a lawful purpose, but the neighbor next door wants to do the same so that their beneficial uses conflict, how might these conflicts be resolved? The conventional law of nuisance offers either a rationale based on fault or a general standard of what is “reasonable,” both of which require litigation to apply to a particular context. This Article suggests that resolving conflicts between neighboring beneficial uses of land would be aided by guidelines which might be grounded in some understandable norms to provide such neighbors with a sense that rough justice is being served. Two such norms appear helpful: priority in time and examining which of the two beneficial uses appears to be the more intrusive of the neighboring land. The hope is that such guidelines might facilitate resolution where hard feelings or litigation might otherwise result.