Whatever the respective rights and obligations of the several property owners among themselves may be (see e.g., 6 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate (4th ed. 2015) § 17:19 [discussing doctrine of lateral support]), every property owner owes to the public a duty to remediate a public nuisance on their property. (See People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuņa (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1090, 1103 ["public nuisance doctrine is aimed at the protection and redress of community interests"]; Leslie Salt Co. v. San Francisco Bay etc. Com. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 605, 622 (Leslie Salt) ["the private right to control land carries with it certain strictly enforceable public responsibilities"].) The city is authorized to enforce that obligation. (Gov. Code, § 38771 ["By ordinance the city legislative body may declare what constitutes a nuisance"]; S.F. Building Code, § 102A [declaring "buildings, structures, property, or portions thereof" that are "structurally unsafe" to be public nuisances].) All that is necessary to establish the propriety of the abatement orders, in addition to proper notice and a fair hearing, is that a portion of the wall be situated on the appellants' property and in an unsafe condition constituting a public nuisance. (Leslie Salt, supra, at p. 622 ["liability and the duty to take affirmative action flow not from the landowner's active responsibility for a condition of his land . . . [but] simply, from his very possession and control of the land in question"].)