Also known as: real covenant · covenants running with the land
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A written promise concerning land use that historically ran with the land at law when the parties intended it to bind successors, the promise touched and concerned the land, and horizontal and vertical privity existed between the original parties and their successors. Modern doctrine treats such promises as servitudes enforceable under unified rules that no longer require separate labels or the full set of traditional privity elements.
Riverstone Manufacturing subdivided its waterfront parcel and sold one tract to Trident Marine Corp and another to Anchor Storage LLC. Both buyers refused to maintain the shared dock required by a recorded covenant benefiting Bayview Marina. Bayview sued each successor, and the court held that the burden continued on every resulting parcel because the covenant ran with the land.
Rita Russell purchased a unit in Lakeside Village subject to recorded covenants limiting pets. She kept three cats despite the restriction. The association sought to enforce the covenant against her as a successor owner, and the court applied the running-covenant analysis to determine whether the burden bound her.
Lakeside Village is a 530-unit condominium development in Culver City consisting of 12 separate three-story buildings whose residents share common lobbies, hallways, laundry, and trash facilities. In April 1978 the developer recorded a declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions that included the provision that no animals, defined to mean dogs and cats, livestock, reptiles, or poultry, shall be kept in any unit. Plaintiff Natore Nahrstedt purchased a unit in January 1988 and moved in with her three cats, which she kept entirely inside the unit. When the Lakeside Village Condominium Association learned of the cats it demanded their removal and levied successive monthly fines against Nahrstedt. Nahrstedt then filed suit against the Association, its officers, and two employees seeking declaratory relief that the pet restriction was unreasonable as applied to her indoor cats, invalidation of the assessments, damages for invasion of privacy and emotional distress, and injunctive relief. The complaint alleged that the cats were noiseless, created no nuisance, and had not damaged any portion of her unit or the common areas, and it incorporated by reference the grant deed, the declaration, and the condominium plan. The Association demurred to the complaint on the ground that the restriction was reasonable as a matter of law. The trial court sustained the demurrer as to every cause of action and dismissed the complaint. A divided Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of dismissal, concluding that Nahrstedt had stated a claim for declaratory relief because the reasonableness of enforcing the restriction against her particular cats presented a factual question. The dissenting justice in the Court of Appeal maintained that the recorded restriction should be treated as presumptively valid under the law of equitable servitudes. On the Association's petition the Supreme Court granted review.
View caseRaphael Rivera owned a unit in La Jolla Shores and objected to the association's decision on common-area maintenance. He sued claiming the association acted unreasonably. The court reviewed whether the governing covenants ran with the land and bound successors under the applicable enforcement standards.
Gertrude M. Lamden owns a condominium unit in one of three buildings comprising the La Jolla Shores Clubdominium condominium development in La Jolla, California. The development was built in 1971. Lamden and her husband bought unit 375 in 1973. Until 1977 the Lamdens used their unit only as a rental. From 1977 until 1988 they lived in the unit. Since 1988 the unit has again been used only as a rental. The development is governed by defendant La Jolla Shores Clubdominium Homeowners Association, an unincorporated community association. In the late 1980's the Association hired a contractor to renovate exterior siding on all three buildings. The contractor replaced the siding on the southern exposure of Building Three and removed damaged drywall and framing. Where the contractor encountered termites a termite extermination company provided spot-treatment and replaced damaged material. Lamden remodeled the interior of her condominium in 1990. At that time the Association's manager arranged for a termite extermination company to spot-treat areas where Lamden had encountered termites. The following year both Lamden and the Association obtained termite inspection reports recommending fumigation but the Association's Board decided against that approach. The Board based its decision not to fumigate on concerns about the cost of fumigation, logistical problems with temporarily relocating residents, concern that fumigation residue could affect residents' health and safety, awareness that upcoming walkway renovations would include replacement of damaged areas, pet moving expenses, anticipated breakage by the termite company, lost rental income and the likelihood that termite infestation would recur even if primary treatment were utilized. In 1991 and 1992 the Association engaged a company to repair water intrusion damage to four units in Building Three. The company removed siding in the balcony area, repaired and waterproofed the decks, and repaired joints between the decks and the walls of the units. Where termite infestation or damage became apparent during this project spot-treatment was applied and damaged material removed. In 1993 and 1994 the Association commissioned major renovation of the Development's walkway system. The $1.6 million walkway project was monitored by a structural engineer and an on-site architect. In 1994 Lamden brought this action for damages, an injunction and declaratory relief. She purported to state numerous causes of action based on the Association's refusal to fumigate for termites naming as defendants individual members of the Board as well as the Association. Her amended complaint included claims sounding in breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. At trial Lamden waived any damages claims and dismissed with prejudice the individual defendants. Presently she seeks only an injunction and declaratory relief. After both sides had presented evidence and argument the trial court found there was no question from all the evidence that Mrs. Lamden's unit has had a serious problem with termites. The evidence was overwhelming that termites had been a problem over the past several years. The trial court found that the Board did have a rational basis for their decision to reject fumigation and do what they did. Ultimately the court gave judgment for the Association applying what it called a business judgment test. Lamden appealed. Citing Frances T. v. Village Green Owners Assn. the Court of Appeal agreed with Lamden that the trial court had applied the wrong standard of care in assessing the Association's actions. Accordingly the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of the trial court. We granted the Association's petition for review.
View caseThe covenant must be in writing, the original parties must intend it to bind successors, it must touch and concern the land, and both horizontal and vertical privity must exist. Modern analysis under the Restatement focuses on intent, creation method, validity, and termination rather than these separate labels.
Supporting sources
The Restatement abandons the separate labels and treats both as servitudes encompassed within the term covenant that runs with land. It eliminates the need to distinguish enforcement at law from enforcement in equity for most purposes.
Supporting sources
No. When land subject to a running covenant is subdivided, each resulting parcel ordinarily remains burdened unless the creating instrument provides otherwise. A court may apportion the obligation if necessary to avoid an unreasonable increase in total burden.
Supporting sources