Also known as: restrictive covenants · RC
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A negative covenant that limits permissible uses of land. The obligation requires the covenantor to refrain from specified activities on the burdened parcel and is treated as equivalent to a negative easement.
Roland Rhodes owns Lot A and grants Ravi Reddy an interest in Lot B that prevents Rhodes from erecting any structure blocking Reddy's view. When Rhodes later attempts to build a tall fence, Reddy sues to stop the construction. The court treats the interest as a restrictive covenant rather than an easement because it imposes a negative obligation on the servient land.
Riverfront Developments sells parcels in a subdivision and includes a covenant in each deed barring any commercial activity. When a later buyer attempts to open a retail store, neighboring owners seek an injunction. The covenant qualifies as a restrictive covenant because it limits the permissible uses of the burdened land.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Rhapsody Entertainment requires employees to sign agreements containing damage caps on statutory claims. An employee challenges the clause as overbroad. The court refuses to rewrite the provision because doing so would encourage drafters to include deliberately illegal terms.
Ralph Richardson and other owners sue to prevent Raphael Rivera from taking title under a deed containing a racial restriction. The court refuses to enforce the covenant because judicial action would constitute state discrimination.
A state statute prohibits married couples from using contraceptives. The court holds that enforcement would invade a protected zone of privacy surrounding the marital relationship.
Spur Industries operates a feedlot in an area later developed for residences by Del E. Webb Development Co. When homeowners sue to abate the odors, the court balances the equities and requires the developer to pay relocation costs before granting relief.
A restrictive covenant imposes a negative obligation to refrain from certain land uses. An affirmative easement grants a positive right to enter and use another's land. The Restatement treats negative easements as restrictive covenants.
Supporting sources
Courts refuse enforcement when the covenant is racially discriminatory, when conditions have fundamentally changed, or when the covenant is overbroad in an employment or arbitration context. Judicial enforcement of racial covenants violates equal protection.
Supporting sources
An enforceable restrictive covenant renders title unmarketable because it limits the buyer's use of the land. A covenant that is no longer enforceable or that merely duplicates zoning does not affect marketability.
Supporting sources
…of potential pupils and their parents; and to Barrows v. Jackson , 346 U. S. 249, where a white defendant, party to a racially restrictive covenant, who was being sued for damages by the covenantors because she had conveyed her property to Negroes, was allowed to raise the issue that enforcement of the covenant violated the rights of…