Does the statute of limitations apply to nuisance claims?

Indeed, the language of Nestle v. City of Santa Monica, supra, 6 Cal.3d 920, 101 Cal.Rptr. 568, 496 P.2d 480, supports the conclusion that nuisances caused by the owners or operators of airports are not necessarily permanent but may be characterized as continuous nuisances for purposes of resolving disputes concerning the statute of limitations. In Nestle, homeowners brought suit against the City of Santa Monica for injuries alleged to have been suffered by virtue of the city's operation of the Santa Monica Airport. The homeowners sought to recover property and personal injury damages claiming that "vibration, fumes, and noise emanating from jet aircraft landing and taking off at the airport caused damage to their property, interfered with the free enjoyment of their property and resulted in physical pain, suffering and emotional disturbance." (Id., at p. 924, 101 Cal.Rptr. 568, 496 P.2d 480.) The homeowners asserted theories of inverse condemnation, nuisance, negligence and zoning violations as the bases of recovery. The trial court ruled, inter alia, that the homeowners had failed to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action for nuisance upon the theory that the city was immune from liability for damages.