Defendant bought the property adjacent to plaintiff’s property and improved the purchased property with a drip-irrigated walnut orchard. A strip of land on defendant’s side of the fence between the two properties was actually plaintiff’s property. After defendant completed the orchard improvements, plaintiff sued for trespass on that strip of land and sought an injunction requiring defendant to restore the strip to its prior condition. This decision affirms the trial court’s judgment finding that plaintiff was barred from equitable relief by laches. Not only had he waited 9 months after defendant bought the property and 3 months after completion of the orchard improvements to raise the issue, but he had known the fence didn’t match the property line for decades but had allowed the former owner of defendant’s property to use the land up to the fence as his own. Defendant was prejudiced in having invested considerable time and money in the improvements on that property. The trial court also properly applied the relative hardship doctrine to deny plaintiff relief since restoring the strip to its prior condition would cost a lot and cause defendant considerable harm, while the orchard, though partly on plaintiff’s property, caused him little harm as he hadn’t used that strip in decades. Finally, the trial court properly found that the trespass was permanent and that plaintiff was entitled only to damages measured by the diminished value of his remaining property, not by the cost of restoring the property to its former condition.