Also known as: equitable restrictions · equitable servitude
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A land-use restriction enforceable in equity against successors who take title with notice. The restriction arises from a promise concerning land use and binds subsequent owners when the elements of intent, notice, and a connection to the land are satisfied.
Mountain Eco obtained an equitable restriction through a 2019 settlement that limited impervious surfaces and required annual audits on land owned by Dawn Sustainability. Dawn sold the property to Northern Conservation without recording the settlement. Northern's title search revealed no encumbrance, so the restriction does not bind Northern and Mountain Eco cannot enjoin Northern's collection of rents or alterations.
Lakeside Village's recorded declaration prohibited cats and dogs in units. Nahrstedt purchased a unit with actual knowledge of the restriction and kept three cats. The association sought to enforce the restriction. Because the restriction was recorded and Nahrstedt had notice, the court enforced it against her as an equitable restriction running with the land.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Bear Creek's unrecorded planning committee rules limited building locations on lots. Riley purchased a lot without actual notice of the rules and began construction in a prohibited area. The committee sought an injunction. Because the rules were never recorded and Riley lacked notice, the equitable restriction did not bind Riley.
La Jolla Shores homeowners association decided to repair rather than replace a common-area roof. Lamden, a unit owner, sued claiming the decision violated recorded restrictions. The court deferred to the association's reasonable business judgment because the restriction was part of the governing documents and the decision fell within the association's discretion under the equitable restriction framework.
Modern doctrine treats both as species of covenants that run with the land. The Restatement abandoned separate labels because the differences in creation and enforcement have largely disappeared.
Supporting sources
Record notice from a recorded instrument is ordinarily sufficient. Actual notice also works, but an unrecorded restriction does not bind a purchaser who lacks actual or constructive notice.
Supporting sources
A court may decline enforcement when changed circumstances have rendered the restriction obsolete or when the equities strongly favor non-enforcement, though termination rather than mere denial of an injunction is the usual result.
No. Modern law has eliminated the horizontal-privity requirement that once distinguished real covenants from equitable servitudes, so notice plus intent and a land-related purpose suffice.
Supporting sources
…in favor of each parcel as against all the others." ( Werner v. Graham (1919) 181 Cal. 174, 183 [183 P. 945].) (7) In choosing equitable servitude law as the standard for enforcing CC&R's in common interest developments, the Legislature has manifested a preference in favor of their enforcement. This preference is underscored by the…