Which of the following can be a defense to a nuisance claim?

Demonstrating compliance with a relevant statute serves as a solid defense to a nuisance claim because it indicates that the defendant was following legal requirements and regulations that govern the conduct in question. If a party can show that their actions were in line with existing laws, it suggests that they were acting within the bounds of what is legally acceptable and thereby strengthens their position against liability. Compliance may demonstrate that the conduct was reasonable under the circumstances, which can mitigate the claim of nuisance since it reflects a responsible approach to property use.

Other potential defenses, while relevant in different contexts, do not provide a robust defense in a nuisance case. For example, claiming the plaintiffs have no rights to their property does not directly address the nuisance itself but rather challenges the underlying property rights, which is not typically central to nuisance claims. Proving intentional conduct by the plaintiff is generally not a defense in nuisance cases; typically, it is the defendant's conduct that is scrutinized. Finally, affirming that the nuisance caused no harm might not negate the claim if the nuisance is proven to exist, as nuisance can be based on interference with enjoyment of property rather than physical harm. Thus, compliance with relevant statutes stands out as the most effective defense in this scenario.