You may have a nuisance case

Here is a 2005 California case:

Stabile v. Wolf
Cal.Rptr.3d, 2005 WL 1744552, Cal.App. 2 Dist.,2005.

While the trial court gave summary judgment to the defendant, the appeal court reversed and remanded for determination of proper injunction and damage, on the basis (the appeal court ruling):

The Civil Code provides that fences, and other structures in the nature of a fence, that are unnecessarily higher than 10 feet and that are maliciously erected or maintained for the purpose of annoying the owner or occupant of adjoining property, constitute a private nuisance and if the owner or occupant of the adjoining property is injured either in his comfort or the enjoyment of his estate by such a nuisance, he has remedies against its continuance, including a civil action and abatement. (Civ.Code, § 841.4, 3501-3503.) In Wilson v. Handley (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1301 (Wilson ), the court ruled that "[a] row of trees planted along or near the property line between adjoining parcels to separate or mark the boundary between the parcels is a 'structure in the nature of a fence' and may be a spite fence under section 841.4 if the other elements of the spite fence statute--unnecessary height above 10 feet and dominant purpose of annoying the neighbor--are met.

Consult a laywer in your jurisdiction if you will to find out if your jurisdiction has silimar case precedent. Cases in other jurisdictions do not have binding power in your particular jurisdiction.