Also known as: running with the land · runs with the land · run with the land · covenant running with the land
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A covenant or promise respecting land use or title that passes automatically to successors in interest. The benefit or burden attaches to the estate itself rather than remaining personal to the original parties. Intention of the parties and succession to a qualifying interest in the land determine whether the covenant travels with title.
Roberto Reyes conveyed a parcel to Riverfront Developments by general warranty deed containing the covenant against encumbrances. After closing Riverfront discovered a recorded party-wall agreement requiring shared repair costs. Riverfront sued Reyes for breach and recovered damages because the covenant ran with the land and supported the successor's claim against the original grantor.
Prime Theatre promised Sophie to keep a shared courtyard open for art access. Sophie sold the benefited warehouse to Global Arts with a deed reciting that the promise was intended to benefit ongoing arts use. Global Arts enforced the promise against Prime Theatre because the parties intended the benefit to run with the land.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Global Arts held the benefit of Prime Theatre's courtyard promise and granted Nicholas a non-exclusive license to display art. Nicholas attempted to enforce the promise after Global Arts explored selling the warehouse. The court denied enforcement because Nicholas succeeded only to a license and not to any ownership interest in the benefited land.
A testator directed that her residence never be altered or sold. The estate trustee sought to sell the property to satisfy debts. The court refused to enforce the restriction against subsequent purchasers because the promise did not run with the land under the governing doctrine.
The original owner of Leicester Square sold adjacent land with a covenant to maintain the square as an open garden. The square passed through mesne conveyances to Moxhay who purchased with notice of the covenant. The court enforced the covenant against Moxhay because it ran with the land and bound successors who took with notice.
A deed contained a covenant prohibiting sale of the property to non-Caucasians. Jackson sold to a non-Caucasian buyer and the original covenant beneficiaries sued for damages. The Supreme Court held the covenant unenforceable because it violated public policy and could not run with the land to support later claims.
The parties must intend the benefit or burden to run. The successor must take some interest in the land to which the promise relates. Recording or notice often supplies evidence of intent and protects subsequent purchasers.
Supporting sources
Yes. Covenants of seisin, against encumbrances, and warranty in a general warranty deed run with the land. A later grantee may therefore enforce the covenant directly against the original grantor for a breach that existed at the time of the first conveyance.
Supporting sources
No. The benefit of a promise runs only to one who succeeds to an ownership or leasehold interest in the benefited land. A mere license creates no such interest and therefore does not carry enforcement rights.
Supporting sources
Recording provides constructive notice but does not by itself create running character. The instrument must also manifest intent that the promise bind or benefit successors and the successor must take a qualifying interest in the land.
Supporting sources
…with buildings. On a motion to discharge that order, Mr. R. Palmer for the defendant contended that the covenant did not run with the land so as to be binding at law upon a purchaser from the covenantor, and he relied on the dictum of Lord Brougham C. in Keppell v. Bayley (2 M. & K. 547) to the effect that notice of such a…