Also known as:runs with land · running with 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 legal device that creates a right or obligation attached to land so that it passes automatically to successive owners or occupiers of the benefited or burdened estate. The device operates only when the original parties intended the right or obligation to travel with the land and only to a successor who takes an interest in the relevant parcel.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Warranty Covenant Survives Conveyance
Roger Ramirez conveyed a parcel to Renee Rogers by general warranty deed containing a covenant against encumbrances. Years later Renee conveyed the same parcel to Roberto Reyes. When Roberto discovered a recorded party-wall obligation that predated the original deed, he sued Roger for breach. The covenant supplied the basis for Roberto's claim because it had passed with the land to each successive grantee.
Intent Controls Running Benefit
Rita Russell promised neighboring owner Raphael Rivera that she would keep a strip of her land open for light and air. The recorded instrument stated the promise was made for the benefit of Rivera's parcel and its future owners. Rivera later sold his parcel to Rising Sun Electronics. When Russell attempted to build on the strip, the company enforced the promise because the parties had manifested intent that the benefit travel with the land.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Common Law
Restatements
Hornbooks
Servitude Attaches to Estates
Reliance Insurance recorded a covenant requiring each unit owner in a mixed-use building to contribute to maintenance of a shared library. Regal Apparel purchased one unit subject to the recorded declaration. When Regal refused to pay its share, the library owner enforced the obligation because the covenant created a servitude that bound successive owners of the burdened units.
Successor Must Hold Interest
Riverstone Manufacturing granted a recorded promise to keep a lawn open for the benefit of an adjacent university campus. The university later granted a forty-year ground lease of the campus buildings to Edutech. When Riverstone paved the lawn, Edutech sued to enforce the promise. Edutech prevailed because it had succeeded to an interest in the benefited land.
Automatic Passage to Successors
Raymond Ramos recorded a covenant limiting building height on his parcel to preserve sunlight on an adjacent community-center playground. The center later granted a twenty-five-year lease of the playground property to BrightSteps Youth Programs. When Ramos began a taller addition, BrightSteps obtained an injunction. The restriction passed automatically to BrightSteps as successor in possession of the benefited land.
Benefit Runs to Dominant Estate
Raphael Rivera promised Sunrise Community Center that he would never build above one story on his adjoining lot. Sunrise later leased the entire center property, including the playground, to BrightSteps for twenty-five years. When Rivera started a three-story addition, BrightSteps sued. The height restriction constituted a benefit appurtenant to the center's land and therefore ran to the lessee as holder of the dominant estate.
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
What must be shown for a covenant benefit to run with land?+
The original parties must have intended the benefit to run, and the party seeking enforcement must succeed to some interest in the benefited land. No additional privity between promisor and promisee is required beyond the promise itself.
Does a long-term lease qualify as a sufficient interest for the benefit to run?+
Yes. A leasehold is a recognized interest in land. When the lessee succeeds to possession of the benefited parcel, the benefit of a running covenant passes to the lessee for the duration of the lease.
How does recording affect whether a covenant runs with the land?+
Recording supplies constructive notice to subsequent purchasers and supports the inference that the parties intended the covenant to bind successors. It does not, however, substitute for the substantive requirements of intent and succession to an interest in the land.
2 Phillips 774, 41 Eng. Rep. 1143Property
…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…