An establishment known to have imminent health hazards is not closed by the inspecting regulatory authority. This best exemplifies:

The scenario presented illustrates a situation of nonfeasance, which refers to the failure to take appropriate action when there is a duty to do so, particularly in the context of health and safety regulations. In this case, the regulatory authority recognizes an establishment that poses imminent health hazards, yet does not take the necessary steps to close it. This failure to act despite the known risks demonstrates a neglect of duty towards public health protections.

Nonfeasance is particularly critical in regulatory environments where the consequences of inaction can lead to serious health risks for the public. The inspectorial authority holds a responsibility to ensure that establishments comply with health standards for the safety of the community, and not acting in the face of imminent hazards is a clear violation of this responsibility.

In contrast, malfeasance would imply wrongful actions taken by the authority, while misfeasance would indicate improper actions. The term "controlling factor" does not accurately reflect the legal implications of failing to act. Therefore, this situation distinctly exemplifies nonfeasance, where the expected protective action was not carried out, resulting in potential harm to public health.