Hubbry Logo
Covenant (law)Covenant (law)Main
Open search
Covenant (law)
Community hub
Covenant (law)
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Covenant (law)
Covenant (law)
Covenant (law)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Property law
Part of the common law series
Types
Acquisition
Estates in land
Conveyancing
Future use control
Nonpossessory interest
Related topics
Other common law areas
Higher category: Law and Common law

A covenant, in its most general and historical sense, is a solemn promise to engage in or refrain from a specified action. Under historical English common law, a covenant was distinguished from an ordinary contract by the presence of a seal.[1] Because the presence of a seal indicated an unusual solemnity in the promises made in a covenant, the common law would enforce a covenant even in the absence of consideration.[2] In United States contract law, an implied covenant of good faith is presumed.

A covenant is an agreement like a contract. A covenantor makes a promise to a covenantee to perform an action (affirmative covenant in the United States or positive covenant in England and Wales) or to refrain from an action (negative covenant). In real property law, the term real covenants means that conditions are tied to the ownership or use of land. A "covenant running with the land", meeting tests of wording and circumstances laid down in precedent, imposes duties or restrictions upon the use of that land regardless of the owner.

A covenant for title that comes with a deed or title to the property assures the purchaser that the grantor has the ownership rights that the deed purports to convey.[3] Non-compete clauses in relation to contract law are also called restrictive covenants.

Landlords may seek and courts may grant forfeiture of leases such as in leasehold estates for breach of covenant, which in most jurisdictions must be relatively severe breaches; however, the covenant to pay rent is one of the more fundamental covenants. The forfeiture of a private home involves interference with social and economic human rights. In the case of leases commuted to a large sum payable at the outset (a premium), that has prompted lobbying for and government measures of leasehold reform particularly in the law of ground rents and service charges.

Restrictive covenants are somewhat similar to easements and equitable servitude.[4] In the US, the Restatement (Third) of Property takes steps to merge the concepts as servitudes.[5] Real covenant law in the US has been referred to as an "unspeakable quagmire" by one court.[6]

[edit]

In property law, land-related covenants are called "real covenants", " covenants, conditions and restrictions " (CCRs) or "deed restrictions" and are a major form of covenant, typically imposing restrictions on how the land may be used (a negative covenant) or requiring a certain continuing action (an affirmative covenant). These may also "run with the land" (called a covenant appurtenant), meaning that any future owners of the land must abide by the terms, or may apply to a particular person (called a covenant in gross or of a purely personal nature).[7] Under English law, affirmative covenants typically do not run with the land; in the United States such covenants are examined more closely, but with exceptions affirmative covenants have been permitted to run with the land.[8]

The covenant may be shown in the deed and should be disclosed to prospective purchasers; it may also be recorded, or in the case of Commonwealth countries shown in Torrens title. Real covenants and easements or equitable servitudes are similar[9] and in 1986, a symposium discussed whether the law of easements, equitable servitudes, and real covenants should be unified.[4] As time passes and the original promisee of the covenant is no longer involved in the land, enforcement may become lax.[10]

Covenants may be imposed through homeowner associations, and controversy has arisen over selective enforcement.[11] Historically, particularly in the United States, exclusionary covenants were used to exclude racial minorities. Some covenants exist for safety purposes, such as a covenant forbidding the construction of tall buildings in the vicinity of an airport or one restricting the height of fences/shrubs at street corners (so as not to interfere with drivers' sight lines). Covenants may restrict everything from the height and size of buildings to the materials used in construction to superficial matters such as paint color and holiday decorations. In residential areas, covenants may forbid "dirty" businesses (such as feedlots or chemical production facilities) or business use entirely, or modifications such as amateur radio antenna. Amateur radio restrictions have been particularly controversial; in 1985 the U.S. Federal Communications Commission issued PRB-1 preempting state and local restrictions, but not private restrictions; in 2012 after Congress passed a law requiring study of this issue (at the urging of amateur radio group ARRL[12]), the FCC declined to extend this preemption.[13] Some US states have enacted legislation requiring homeowners' associations to provide reasonable accommodations for amateur radio antennas under the rationale that amateur radio provides public service communications in the event of an emergency, major disaster, or special event.

Application by jurisdiction

[edit]

Canada

[edit]

In Canada, governmental authorities may use restrictive covenants as well as zoning. For instance, the City of Calgary's requirement that buildings in the general vicinity of Calgary International Airport be under a certain height is registered against virtually every title in the northeast quadrant of the city as a restrictive covenant, not as a zoning by-law.

England and Wales

[edit]

At common law, the benefit of a restrictive covenant runs with the land if three conditions are met:[14]

  • The covenant must not be personal in nature – it must benefit the land rather than an individual
  • The covenant must 'touch and concern' the land – it must affect how the land is used or the value of the land
  • The benefited land must be identifiable.

At common law, the burden of a restrictive covenant does not run[15] except where strict privity of estate (a landlord/tenant relationship) exists.

The burden can be enforced at law in limited circumstances under the benefit/burden test - that is, whoever takes the benefit must also shoulder the burden. In Halsall v Brizell [1957] Ch 169, a covenant requiring the upkeep of roads was found to bind the successor in title to the original covenantor because he had elected to take the benefit. The rule in Halsall v Brizell is limited to cases where the benefit can be linked to a specific burden and where the covenantor's successors in title can physically elect to take the benefit. For example, a restrictive covenant to contribute to the maintenance costs of a common area will not be binding if the covenantor's successors in title have no legal right to use them.[16] Rules for ascertaining whether the benefit of a covenant has been passed to another person who wishes to enforce the covenant were summarised in Small (Hugh) v Oliver & Saunders (Developments) Ltd. in 2006, namely by an express assignment of the benefit, through a building scheme arrangement, usually for a new development of multiple properties, or through the application of section 78 of the Law of Property Act 1925,[17] which only applies for covenants made since 1 January 1926.[18]

A positive burden can run in law, but not in equity, as it is deemed to be analogous to a contract, to which equitable principles do not apply (Rhone v Stephens (1994)).

The burden of a restrictive covenant will run in equity if these prerequisites are met:[19]

  • The burden cannot be a positive burden (that is, it requires expenditure to meet it);
  • The purchaser must have notice of the covenant
  • The covenant must benefit the covenantee's land
  • The covenant must be intended to run with the covenantor's land.

The leading case on restrictive covenants in equity is generally regarded as that of Tulk v Moxhay, in which it was determined that the burden could run in equity subject to the qualifications listed above.

The risk of an undisclosed restrictive covenant coming to the notice of a buyer or developer after they have acquired a site has been seen as especially high in regard to infill residential development. Restrictive covenant indemnity insurance is often available to mitigate this risk.[17]

Requirements in US law

[edit]

The covenant will typically be written in the deed, and must be in writing due to the statute of frauds. Although scholars have argued that some of the following should be significantly relaxed, in order for the burden to run with the land the following must apply:[20]

  • The covenant must be in writing to satisfy the Statute of Frauds.
  • The original parties to the agreement must have intended that successors be bound by the agreement.
  • A subsequent owner must have had actual notice, inquiry notice, or constructive notice (record) of the covenant at the time of purchase.
  • The covenant must touch or concern the land. The covenant must relate to the use or enjoyment of the land.
  • There must be horizontal privity between the original parties.
    • Horizontal privity is found if, at the time the original parties enter into the agreement, those parties share some interest in the subject land independent of the covenant (e.g., landlord and tenant, mortgagee and mortgagor, or holders of mutual easements). Individual state statutes can alter the requirements of horizontal privity of estate. Privity may be instantaneous and mutual; instantaneous privity is present when the restrictive covenant is within the deed initially conveyed from the grantor to the grantee.
  • There must be strict vertical privity of estate.
    • Vertical privity characterizes the relationship between the original party to the covenant and the subsequent owner. To be bound by the covenant, the successor must hold the entire estate in land held by the original party (strict vertical privity of estate). Note that because strict vertical privity is required for a burden to run, a lessee could not have a burden enforced against them. However, a benefited party could sue the owner of the reversion of the estate, and the owner could possibly sue the lessee for waste.

Enforcement and modification

[edit]

US courts interpret covenants relatively strictly and give the words of the agreement their ordinary meaning. Generally if there is any unclear or ambiguous language regarding the existence of a covenant courts will favor free alienation of the property. Courts will not read any restrictions on the land by implication (as is done with easements for example). A covenant can be terminated if the original purpose of the covenant is lost. In some cases property owners can petition a court to remove or modify the covenants, and homeowner associations may include procedures for removing the covenants.

The covenant may be negative or affirmative. A negative covenant is one in which property owners are unable to perform a specific activity, such as block a scenic view. An affirmative covenant is one in which property owners must actively perform a specific activity, such as keeping the lawn tidy or paying homeowner's association dues for the upkeep of the surrounding area.

An agreement not to open a competing business on adjacent property is generally enforceable as a covenant running with the land. However, under the federal Supreme Court's holding in Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), a covenant that restricts sale to a minority person (commonly used during the Jim Crow era) is unenforceable, as enforcement would require the court to act in a racially discriminatory manner, contrary to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In planned communities

[edit]

In contemporary practice in the United States, a covenant typically refers to restrictions set on contracts like deeds of sale. "Covenants, conditions, and restrictions," commonly abbreviated "CC&Rs" or "CCRs", are a complicated system of covenants, known generically as "deed restrictions", built into the deeds of all the lots[21] in a common interest development, particularly in the tens of millions of American homes governed by a homeowner association (HOA) or condominium association. There are some office or industrial parks subject to CCRs as well.

These CCRs might, for example, dictate the types of structures that can be built (e.g., a CCR may prohibit any type of modular, prefabricated, or mobile home or may require the structure to be a minimum size), appearance (e.g., no junk cars), or other uses (e.g., no operation of home-based business, no pets except traditional household animals). The purpose of this is to maintain a neighborhood character or prevent improper use of the land. Many covenants of this nature were imposed in the United States in the 1920s through the 1940s, before zoning became widespread. However, many modern developments are also restricted by covenants on property titles; this is often justified as a means of preserving the values of the houses in the area. Covenant restrictions can be removed through court action, although this process is lengthy and often very expensive. In some cases[which?] it even involves a plebiscite of nearby property owners. Although control of such planning issues is often[when?] governed by local planning schemes or other regulatory frameworks rather than through the use of covenants, there are still[when?] many[quantify] covenants imposed, particularly in states[example needed] that limit the level of control over real property use that may be exercised by local governments. In Houston, Texas, the lack of a local zoning ordinance means that property owners make heavy use of deed restrictions to prevent unwanted development.[22]

Exclusionary covenants

[edit]

Covenants have been used to exclude certain classes from owning real estate based on race, religion or ethnicity. These groups are generally marginalized groups.

United States

[edit]
A Florida subdivision plat from 1926 with a racially-discriminatory deed restriction: "At no time shall the land included in said tract ... be occupied by any negro or person of negro extraction".

In the United States, in the early 20th century zoning laws were used to prevent integrating neighborhoods but were struck down in Buchanan v. Warley. Thus, deed restrictions and restrictive covenants became an important instrument for enforcing racial segregation in most towns and cities, becoming widespread in the 1920s and proliferating until they were declared unenforceable in 1948[23] in the Supreme Court case Shelley v. Kraemer. They prohibited a buyer of real property from allowing use or occupancy by members of a given race, ethnicity, or religion as specified in the title deed. Such covenants were employed by many real estate developers to "protect" entire subdivisions, with the primary intent to keep "white" neighborhoods "white". Ninety percent of the housing projects built in the years following World War II were racially restricted by such covenants.[24] Cities known for their widespread use of racial covenants include Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, Milwaukee,[25] Los Angeles, Seattle, and St. Louis.[26]

Said premises shall not be rented, leased, or conveyed to, or occupied by, any person other than of the white or Caucasian race.

— Racial covenant for a home in Beverly Hills, California.[23]

Often the restrictions applied only to African Americans wishing to buy property or rent a house or apartment, but other populations might also be banned, such as Asians, Jews, Indians, and some Latinos. For example, a restrictive covenant covering a large neighborhood in Seattle declared that "no part of said property hereby conveyed shall ever be used or occupied by any Hebrew or by any person of the Ethiopian, Malay or any Asiatic Race", thus banning Jews and anyone of African, Filipino, or Asian ancestry. The exclusionary language varied widely. Some neighborhoods were reserved for the "White or Caucasian race". Others enumerated banned populations. One subdivision near Seattle specified that "This property shall not be resold, leased, rented or occupied except to or by persons of the Aryan race."[27] The Lake Shore Club District in Pennsylvania sought to exclude various minorities, including "Negroes", "Mongolians", Hungarians, Mexicans, Greeks, and various other European ethnicities.[28]

In Montgomery County, Maryland, covenants excluded Black Americans and sometimes included language excluding Jews, Armenians, Iranians, Syrians, Turks, Greeks, Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Mongolians, Asians in general, or "non-Caucasians" in general.[29]

Covenants in Massachusetts localities excluded Black Americans and sometimes Irish, Italian and Polish people as well. One 1881 deed from Lowell, Massachusetts stated that "land shall never be deeded or conveyed to any person born in Ireland". A 1916 covenant in Springfield, Massachusetts, stated that "said lot shall not be resold to a colored person, a Polander or an Italian."[30]

Some covenants, such as those tied to properties in Forest Hills Gardens, New York, also sought to exclude working class people; however, this type of social segregation was more commonly achieved through the use of high property prices, minimum cost requirements, and application reference checks.[28]: 131–137 

Covenants in Seattle, Washington, typically banned Black and Asian people and sometimes Jews.[31]

Covenants in Hennepin County and Ramsey County, Minnesota excluded African Americans and sometimes Asians and Middle Easterners. Prior to 1919, covenants sometimes excluded Jews. One Minneapolis covenant excluded "any person or persons of Chinese, Japanese, Moorish, Turkish, Negro, Mongolian or African blood or descent."[32] In 1953, the Michigan Legislature banned new covenants and in 1962 the legislature banned housing discrimination on the basis of race, religion or national origin.[33]

History

[edit]
Restrictions on "any person of Chinese, Japanese, Moorish, Turkish, Negro, Mongolian, Semetic or African blood or descent", (Minneapolis Tribune 1919)

Racial covenants emerged during the mid-19th century and started to gain prominence from the 1890s onwards. It was not until the 1920s that they gained widespread national significance, and continued to spread through the 1940s. Racial covenants were an alternative to racially restrictive zoning ordinances (residential segregation based on race), which the 1917 US Supreme Court ruling of Buchanan v. Warley invalidated on constitutional grounds.[34][35]: 26 

During the 1920s, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) sponsored several unsuccessful legal challenges against racial covenants. In a blow to campaigners against racial segregation, the legality of racially restrictive covenants was affirmed by the landmark Corrigan v. Buckley 271 U.S. 323 (1926) judgment ruling that such clauses constituted "private action" not subject to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[35]: 31 [36] This cleared the way for racial restrictive covenants to proliferate across the US during the 1920s and 1930s.

Even the invalidation of such a covenant by the US Supreme Court in the 1940 case of Hansberry v. Lee did little to reverse the trend, because the ruling was based on a technicality and failed to set a legal precedent.[35]: 57  It was not until 1948 that the Shelley v. Kraemer judgment overturned the Corrigan v. Buckley decision, stating that exclusionary covenants were unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment and were therefore legally unenforceable.[35]: 94 [37][38] On December 2, 1949 US solicitor general Philip Perlman announced that the "FHA could no longer insure mortgages with restrictive covenants".[39]

Some commentators have attributed the popularity of exclusionary covenants at this time as a response to the urbanization of black Americans following World War I, and the fear of "black invasion" into white neighborhoods, which residents felt would result in depressed property prices, increased nuisance (crime), and social instability.[28]: 97–98  Many African Americans openly defied these covenants and attempted to "pioneer" restricted areas.[40] But even still the covenants played a role as "gentlemen agreements", it wasn't until 1962, that the Equal Opportunity in Housing executive order was signed by President John F. Kennedy, prohibiting using federal funds to support racial discrimination in housing. This caused the FHA to "cease financing subdivision developments whose builders openly refused to sell to black buyers."[41]

In 1968, Congress passed the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968) which outlawed housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In 1988, it was expanded to prohibit discrimination based on familial status (e.g. the presence of children) or disability.[42] It wasn't until 1972 that the Mayers v Ridley decision[43] ruled that the covenants themselves violated the Fair Housing Act and that county clerks should be prohibited from accepting deeds with such clauses.[44]

Persistence of exclusionary covenants

[edit]

Although exclusionary covenants are not enforceable today, they still exist in many original property deeds as "underlying documents", and title insurance policies often contain exclusions preventing coverage of such restrictions. It is not always easy to remove them from the chain of title.[45] Since 2010, the Seattle Civil Rights & Labor History Project has located more than 500 restrictive covenants and deeds covering more than 20,000 properties in Seattle and its suburbs. In response, the Washington State legislature passed a law that since January 1, 2019 allows property owners to "modify" property records, disavowing the offensive restriction.[46] Mapping Inequality, a collaboration of three teams at four universities, has identified restrictive covenants in various parts of the United States.[47] The Mapping Prejudice project at the University of Minnesota has collected restrictive covenants in the Minneapolis area.[48]

Examples

[edit]

Outside the US

[edit]

Although most commonly associated with the United States, racially or ethnically restrictive covenants have been used in other countries:

  • Canada – Subdivisions such as Westdale, Ontario employed racial covenants to bar a diverse array of ethnic groups, such as Armenians and foreign-born Italians and Jews.[28]: 103  Opposition to exclusionary covenants was significant in Canada, culminating in the 1945 Re Drummond Wren ruling by the Ontario High Court which invalidated their use. This judgment was influential in guiding similar decisions in the United States and elsewhere.[54]
  • France – During World War II, under the Vichy regime in the Free Zone outside the Nazi occupied area, some condominiums inserted clauses forbidding selling to Jews.[55]
  • South Africa – racial covenants emerged in Natal during the 1890s as an attempt to prevent Indians from acquiring properties in more expensive areas, and were commonplace across the country by the 1930s. They were later used as a tool to further the cause of apartheid against the black population.[56]
  • Zimbabwe – Asians and coloured people were excluded from purchasing or occupying homes in European areas[when?] by restrictive racial covenants written into most title deeds.[57]

Title covenants

[edit]

Title covenants serve as guarantees to the recipient of property, ensuring that the recipient receives what he or she bargained for.

In England and Wales

[edit]

Since 1989, the main covenants implied in England and Wales on "limited" or "full title guarantee" (unless expressly overridden) are:[58]

  1. that the person making the disposition has the right (with the concurrence of any other person conveying the property) to dispose of the property as he purports to, and[59]
  2. that that person will at his own cost do all that he reasonably can to give the person to whom he disposes of the property the title he purports to give.[60]
  3. [In the case of a disposition of an existing legal interest] (a) where the title to the interest is registered, it shall be presumed that the disposition is of the whole of that interest; (b) [if unregistered and not leasehold, then the presumption it is of the fee simple][61]
  4. [If involving a lease] (a) that the lease is subsisting at the time of the disposition,[62] and
(b) that there is no subsisting breach of a condition or tenant's obligation, and nothing which at that time would render the lease liable to forfeiture.[63]

Others as to charges, incumbrances, and third-party rights vary depending on whether full or limited title guarantee is agreed.[further explanation needed][64]

Outside of England and Wales

[edit]

Outside of England and Wales, the English covenants of title, sometimes included in deeds to real property, are (1) that the grantor is lawfully seized (in fee simple) of the property, (2) that the grantor has the right to convey the property to the grantee, (3) that the property is conveyed without encumbrances (this covenant is frequently modified to allow for certain encumbrances), (4) that the grantor has done no act to encumber the property, (5) that the grantee shall have quiet possession of the property, and (6) that the grantor will execute such further assurances of the land as may be requisite (Nos. 3 and 4, which overlap significantly, are sometimes treated as one item).[65] The English covenants may be described individually, or they may be incorporated by reference, as in a deed granting property "with general warranty and English covenants of title...".

See also

[edit]

Footnotes

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Covenant (law)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In law, a covenant is a formal agreement or promise, typically embedded in a deed or contract, to either perform or refrain from a specific act, with particular significance in real property contexts where it governs the use, maintenance, or transfer of land. Real covenants, which bind successors in title and "run with the land," require elements such as intent to bind future owners, relation to the property's use or value (touch and concern), horizontal and vertical privity between parties, and notice to subsequent purchasers for enforceability. These instruments enable property owners to collectively impose restrictions or obligations, such as prohibiting commercial uses in residential subdivisions or mandating upkeep, thereby preserving economic value and uniformity through private contractual mechanisms akin to modern homeowners' associations. Restrictive covenants, a common subtype, limit permissible activities on the burdened property to benefit neighboring parcels, while affirmative covenants compel positive actions like repairs. Historically in the United States, covenants frequently included racial restrictions barring non-white ownership or occupancy, which proliferated from the early 20th century amid urban migration but were rendered unenforceable via judicial action in Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), as state court enforcement violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, though the private agreements themselves remained intact. This evolution underscores covenants' role in facilitating voluntary property governance, subject to evolving legal limits on content and remedies, including equitable servitudes enforceable via injunctions even absent strict privity.

General Principles

Definition and Scope

A covenant in constitutes a binding or agreement, typically embedded in a , , or , whereby one party (the covenantor) commits to a specific act or in relation to . In the domain of , covenants primarily govern the use, maintenance, or disposition of land, distinguishing them from mere personal contracts by their potential to affect the property's or value. They arise between landowners or grantors and grantees, often to preserve neighborhood character, ensure mutual benefits, or impose restrictions that enhance or protect adjoining parcels. The scope of covenants extends to both obligations requiring positive action, known as affirmative covenants—such as maintaining structures or paying assessments—and those prohibiting conduct, termed restrictive covenants, like bans on commercial use or certain building types. While personal covenants bind only the original parties and expire with their interests, real covenants "run with the land," automatically encumbering or benefiting successors in title provided they meet criteria including intent to bind future owners, relation to the land's use (touching and concerning), privity between parties, and notice to purchasers. Enforcement of real covenants typically yields damages at law, in contrast to equitable servitudes, which invoke injunctions in equity courts. Covenants apply predominantly in common law jurisdictions, influencing property transactions by integrating into title records and impacting marketability; for instance, undisclosed or unenforceable covenants can lead to title defects requiring quiet title actions. Their breadth covers residential subdivisions, commercial developments, and historical land grants, but excludes zoning ordinances, which are public regulations rather than private agreements. Validity hinges on compliance with state statutes and common law doctrines, with courts scrutinizing them for reasonableness to avoid undue restraints on alienation.

Enforceability Requirements

In jurisdictions, covenants are enforceable as contractual promises provided they satisfy fundamental formation elements, including offer, , , and mutual intent to be bound. Parties must also possess legal capacity, and the covenant's purpose must not violate or statutory prohibitions. For covenants involving interests in land, such as those restricting or obligating property use, the mandates execution in writing, signed by the party to be charged, to ensure enforceability against assertions of oral agreements. For real covenants intended to "run with the "—binding successors in rather than merely the original parties—additional stringent requirements apply to prevent indefinite burdens on alienability. These include: (1) express or implied by the original covenanting parties that the or benefit bind future owners, typically evidenced in the or language; (2) the covenant must "touch and concern" the , meaning it directly affects the property's nature, value, or use, such as maintenance obligations or usage restrictions, rather than merely personal undertakings; (3) privity of estate, comprising horizontal privity (a shared in the at covenant creation, like grantor-grantee) for burdens and vertical privity (successor deriving from the original covenantee or covenantor) for both benefits and burdens; and (4) to subsequent purchasers of the burdened , either actual, inquiry, or record, to uphold in . Failure in any requirement typically renders the covenant unenforceable against remote parties, though equity may intervene via equitable servitudes for injunctive relief if exists and the covenant touches and concerns without strict privity, as developed in cases like (1848), prioritizing fairness over rigid formalism where reliance induces development. Courts assess these elements case-by-case, with burdens harder to enforce than benefits due to privity hurdles, reflecting 's caution against perpetual encumbrances. Modern statutes in some U.S. states, such as uniform acts, relax privity for recorded subdivisions, but baselines persist absent legislative override. Covenants in property law differ from easements primarily in their nature and enforcement. An easement grants a non-possessory right to use or access another's land for a specific purpose, such as a right of way, without imposing an affirmative or negative obligation on the burdened property's owner beyond permitting the use. In contrast, a covenant constitutes a contractual promise by the landowner to perform or refrain from certain actions on their own property, enforceable through damages at law for real covenants or injunctions in equity, rather than conferring a usage right on the benefited party. This distinction ensures that easements focus on access privileges, while covenants regulate conduct touching and concerning the land, such as maintenance obligations or building restrictions. Covenants also contrast with conditions precedent or subsequent in deeds, which attach automatic consequences like estate forfeiture or reverter upon breach, shifting title back to the grantor or without requiring judicial intervention. Breach of a covenant, however, typically yields remedies in or rather than title reversion, preserving the estate while compensating the promisee for non-performance. For instance, a condition might void a estate if a structure is altered, whereas a parallel covenant would support a for monetary or an order to restore, reflecting the covenant's role as an ongoing obligation rather than a title contingency. Real covenants further diverge from equitable servitudes, though both bind successors to restrict land use. Real covenants demand strict privity—horizontal (between original parties) and vertical (between successor and original promisee)—and are enforced at law with damages as the primary remedy. Equitable servitudes, by comparison, relax privity requirements, relying instead on notice and intent to bind, and are remedied via equitable injunctions to prevent irreparable harm, originating from courts' equitable jurisdiction to avoid unjust enrichment. This remedial and formal distinction arose historically from common law's rigidity in privity, prompting equity to enforce similar promises where legal enforcement failed, though both "run with the land" if they touch and concern it. Unlike personal contracts, covenants must inherently relate to the land's use or value to bind successors, ensuring they transcend mere inter-party agreements.

Types of Covenants

Affirmative Covenants

Affirmative covenants, also termed positive covenants, obligate a property owner to undertake specific affirmative actions related to the , such as performing , constructing improvements, or contributing to shared costs. These differ from restrictive covenants, which prohibit certain uses or activities, by imposing duties to act rather than to refrain. Common examples include requirements to repair fences, maintain coverage on structures, pay assessments for upkeep in subdivisions, or uphold standards. The enforceability of affirmative covenants against successors in title poses significant challenges under principles. Unlike the burdens of restrictive covenants, which can bind subsequent owners through equitable doctrines like that established in (1848), the burdens of affirmative covenants do not automatically "run with the land." This stems from the historical reluctance of courts to compel positive performance by decree of against remote parties, as it would require ongoing judicial oversight and potentially infringe on the successor's property rights without direct privity. In , this principle was reaffirmed in Rhone v. Stephens UKHL 3, where the held that positive covenants cannot be imposed on freehold successors absent statutory intervention or leasehold structures. To circumvent these limitations, parties often employ indirect mechanisms, such as chains of indemnity covenants where each successor agrees to indemnify the prior owner against breaches, or by structuring obligations within leases, common interest communities, or statutory schemes like the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 for business tenancies. In the United States, while mirrors this non-binding rule for affirmative burdens, enforcement may occur through homeowners' associations via contractual privity or state statutes enabling covenant running in planned communities, as seen in uniform acts like the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act adopted in several states by 2023. These approaches preserve the covenant's intent without altering the foundational barrier.

Restrictive Covenants

Restrictive covenants, also known as negative covenants, are contractual provisions embedded in property deeds or conveyances that prohibit or limit specific uses of the by the owner or subsequent grantees. Unlike affirmative covenants, which mandate positive actions such as or obligations, restrictive covenants impose burdens by forbidding activities, thereby preserving the character, value, or enjoyment of neighboring or benefited properties. For a restrictive covenant to be enforceable, it must be reasonable in scope, clearly articulated, definite in terms, and not violative of . Courts typically require that the covenant be recorded in , enforced uniformly without , and supported by an ongoing benefited , such as adjacent owned by the enforcing party. Neighbors or homeowners' associations may seek injunctive or for violations, provided they demonstrate a legitimate tied to the covenant's purpose. Some covenants include automatic expiration clauses, or "sunset provisions," terminating after a defined period, such as 20 or 30 years, to adapt to changing community needs. Common examples in real estate include prohibitions on commercial activities in residential zones, restrictions on building heights or setbacks, bans on short-term rentals, limits on exterior modifications like paint colors or signage, and rules against parking recreational vehicles or keeping certain pets. These measures aim to maintain uniformity and property values within developments, though overbroad restrictions may be invalidated if they unduly burden the servient estate without proportionate benefit to the dominant estate. In practice, violations can lead to fines imposed by governing associations or court-ordered compliance, underscoring the covenants' role in self-regulating private land use agreements.

Real Covenants Running with the Land

Real covenants running with the land constitute promises embedded in deeds or other instruments that impose obligations or confer benefits tied directly to the property, enforceable against or by subsequent owners who acquire the land with notice of the covenant. Unlike personal covenants binding only the original parties, these covenants "run with the land," meaning they persist beyond the initial transaction and affect the estate's value or use irrespective of changes in ownership. This doctrine originates in English and has been adapted in American jurisdictions to facilitate long-term , such as in subdivisions where uniform restrictions ensure consistent development. For a covenant to qualify as real and run with the land, four core elements must generally be satisfied: it must be in writing to comply with the ; the original parties must demonstrate for it to bind or benefit successors; the promise must "touch and concern" the land by directly affecting its nature, quality, or value rather than merely the owners' personal interests; and privity of estate must exist between the parties. The "touch and concern" requirement, articulated in cases like Spencer's Case (1583), ensures the covenant relates intrinsically to the land's physical attributes or economic utility—for instance, a promise to maintain fences or pay maintenance assessments qualifies, whereas a personal of unrelated to property use does not. is typically inferred from explicit language in the deed stating the covenant "shall run with the land," as seen in the 1938 decision in Neponsit Property Owners' Assn v. Emigrant Indus. Sav. Bank, where covenants for association dues were upheld as binding successors due to such phrasing. Privity distinguishes burdens from benefits in enforcement. Vertical privity requires the successor claiming benefit or bearing burden to hold the same estate (e.g., ) as the original covenantee or covenantor, ensuring continuity of interest in the . Horizontal privity, needed primarily for the burden to run, demands a direct relationship between the original covenanting parties, often arising from a common grantor conveying portions of with reciprocal promises, as in subdivision plats. Subsequent purchasers of the burdened must also have —actual, , or record—to be bound, preventing inequitable surprises; without notice, the covenant fails against bona fide purchasers. For the benefit to run, horizontal privity is typically unnecessary, allowing broader enforceability by benefited successors. In practice, real covenants enable remedies at law, such as for breach, distinguishing them from equitable servitudes, which courts enforce via in equity courts and relax privity requirements in favor of and . American jurisdictions vary: strict common-law privity persists in some states like New York, while others, influenced by the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes (2000), adopt more flexible approaches prioritizing and over rigid privity to reflect modern dynamics. Examples include affirmative duties like shared road maintenance or restrictive limits on building heights, which, if meeting the elements, bind heirs and assigns indefinitely unless terminated by agreement, merger, or changed conditions rendering them obsolete. Courts scrutinize these covenants for reasonableness to avoid undue restraints on alienation, invalidating those imposing excessive burdens without corresponding land-related benefits.

Historical Development

Origins in Common Law

The action of covenant originated in the English royal courts during the late 12th and early 13th centuries as a formal remedy for enforcing promises made under seal, distinguishing it from less solemn parol contracts. The writ of covenant, which required a deed evidencing the sealed obligation, became available as a matter of course (de cursu) by the mid-13th century, allowing plaintiffs to seek damages for breaches of such instruments in contexts including real property transactions. This formality underscored the common law's emphasis on evidentiary reliability, as unsealed promises were generally unenforceable absent consideration under emerging assumpsit doctrines. In property law, the doctrine's development focused initially on leasehold covenants, where burdens could bind lessee assignees through privity of estate—a successor's of the lease term—provided the promise related directly to the demised premises. courts enforced such covenants against assignees as early as the in lease disputes, recognizing that obligations integral to the estate's enjoyment, like repairs or non-waste, inhered in the land itself rather than remaining purely personal. This privity-based mechanism contrasted with freehold conveyances, where covenants typically bound only original parties absent contractual privity, reflecting the 's reluctance to impose perpetual burdens on successors without explicit feudal or tenure ties. The foundational rules for covenants running with the land crystallized in Spencer's Case (1583), where the King's Bench held that a lessee's covenant to build on existing demised land bound assignees without express words like "his assigns," as it touched and concerned the estate in esse (in existence). Conversely, covenants for future improvements required such specification to evince intent to bind successors, establishing the tripartite test—touching and concerning the land, intent to run, and privity—that governed enforceability thereafter. These principles, rooted in leasehold , influenced later applications but highlighted limits: burdens rarely ran to freehold grantees without privity, prompting equitable supplements for negative covenants by the .

Key Milestones in the 19th and 20th Centuries

In 1848, the English in Tulk v. Moxhay established a foundational equitable permitting the enforcement of restrictive covenants against subsequent land purchasers who had actual or of the restriction, thereby allowing the burden to "run with the land" despite the absence of privity of estate required at . This decision addressed limitations in prior precedents like Spencer's Case (1583), enabling developers and landowners to impose enduring use restrictions on subdivided properties, which became instrumental in shaping urban development amid 19th-century industrialization. The principle was widely adopted in U.S. jurisdictions, influencing cases that upheld similar equitable enforcement to preserve neighborhood character. The Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1881 codified implied covenants for in English conveyances made for value, including warranties of right to convey, quiet enjoyment, freedom from encumbrances, and further assurance, thereby standardizing seller obligations and reducing litigation over defective titles. These statutory covenants applied to beneficial owners and trustees, ensuring they bound and assigns unless disclaimed, which streamlined transactions and promoted market efficiency during rapid land conveyance growth. The 20th century saw further codification with England's , effective January 1, 1926, which reformed feudal vestiges and clarified that covenants touching and concerning land automatically pass benefits to successors under sections 78 and 79 if originally intended to run, while section 80 defined running covenants as those binding or benefiting successors at law or in equity. In the United States, Neponsit Property Owners' Ass'n v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank (1938) extended equitable enforcement to affirmative covenants, upholding a deed requirement for annual maintenance assessments as touching and concerning the land, with intent to bind successors and requisite notice, thus facilitating modern planned communities and homeowners' associations. These reforms reflected causal pressures from suburban expansion and collective needs, prioritizing functional enforceability over rigid privity.

Jurisdictional Applications

In the , real covenants—promises respecting the use or enjoyment of that bind successors in title—are primarily governed by state , with variations influenced by judicial adoption of the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes (2000). For a covenant to run with the at and support a remedy, courts traditionally require five elements: (1) a writing embodying the covenant, (2) intent by the original parties that it bind successors, (3) the covenant touches and concerns the by affecting its use, value, or nature, (4) privity of estate (horizontal privity between the original covenanting parties, typically arising from a mutual conveyance, and vertical privity between the original covenantor and successor burdened owners), and (5) notice to subsequent purchasers, either actual, , or record. Horizontal privity poses a significant barrier to enforcing burdens against remote successors, as it limits enforceability to scenarios where the covenant arises in a sale or . Benefits run more readily, often requiring only vertical privity and the other elements. Equitable servitudes, enforceable via rather than , relax privity demands in many jurisdictions, substituting for horizontal privity while retaining requirements of writing, , and touch and concern. The Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes, adopted or influential in over 30 states, further modernizes the doctrine by eliminating horizontal privity for servitude burdens created after 2000, redefining "touch and concern" functionally (a servitude affects land if it impacts its use or value, excluding purely personal obligations), and emphasizing enforceability based on reasonableness rather than formalistic privity. States like and New York maintain stricter approaches, with New York courts upholding traditional privity for legal remedies but allowing equitable enforcement with . Statutory overlays, such as those governing common interest communities, modify these rules; for instance, the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act (adopted in 20 states as of 2023) facilitates covenant enforcement through homeowners' associations (HOAs), which manage restrictive covenants in subdivisions affecting over 74 million Americans in 2023. The U.S. has intervened in covenant enforceability on constitutional grounds, notably in Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), where it held 6-3 that state courts' judicial enforcement of private racially restrictive covenants constitutes state action violating the of the Fourteenth Amendment, rendering such enforcement unconstitutional despite the covenants' private origin. This decision invalidated judicial backing for discriminatory restrictions prevalent in mid-20th-century suburbs but left private agreements intact absent court involvement; subsequent federal legislation, including the Fair Housing Act of 1968, prohibits discriminatory covenants in housing sales and rentals, with the Department of Housing and Urban Development reporting over 28,000 fair housing complaints in 2023, many involving covenant-like restrictions. State courts continue to assess covenant reasonableness, voiding those imposing unreasonable restraints on alienation or lacking legitimate purposes, as in cases enforcing servitudes only if they promote community welfare without undue burden. In commercial contexts, covenants in leases or developments must balance parties' interests, with courts in states like scrutinizing affirmative obligations (e.g., requirements) for specificity to avoid vagueness. Overall, U.S. favors covenant stability in planned developments—where HOAs resolved over 1.2 million violations in 2022 per Community Associations Institute data—while guarding against overreach through implied covenants of and evolving judicial tests for or changed circumstances.

England and Wales

In England and Wales, covenants relating to land are contractual promises made by a landowner (the covenantor) to another party (the covenantee), typically restricting or requiring certain uses of the burdened land to benefit neighboring or retained land. These obligations are governed primarily by principles, equity, and statutes such as the (LPA 1925) and the Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002). For enforceability against successors in title, a key distinction exists between restrictive (negative) covenants, which prohibit actions such as building or commercial use, and positive (affirmative) covenants, which require actions like maintenance or payment of contributions. Restrictive covenants bind successors in equity provided they "touch and concern" the benefited land, the benefited land is identified and retained by the covenantee or passes to successors, and the successor acquires the burdened land with actual, constructive, or imputed notice of the covenant. This doctrine originated in the landmark case Tulk v Moxhay (1848), where the Court of Chancery granted an injunction enforcing a covenant to maintain Leicester Square as a pleasure garden against a purchaser who had notice, establishing that equity could impose the burden without privity of estate at law. The benefit of such covenants passes at common law under section 78 LPA 1925 if annexed to the land, but equitable enforcement requires the fourfold test from Cosmichome Holdings Ltd v Gloucester Quays Developments Ltd (2019), emphasizing proximity or a building scheme for mutual enforceability within developments. Positive covenants, by contrast, do not run with the freehold land at or in equity, meaning the burden cannot be directly enforced against successors who did not personally agree to it; liability remains personal to the original covenantor unless enforced through leasehold structures or commonhold associations under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. Indirect enforcement may occur via an unbroken chain of covenants in conveyances, where each purchaser covenants to indemnify predecessors against breaches, though this provides rather than and fails if the chain breaks. Under the LRA 2002, which applies to the majority of registered land (over 88% of titles as of 2023), restrictive covenants created after 13 October 2003 must be noted or protected by entry in the charges register of the burdened title to bind successors as overriding interests only if the purchaser is bound by the Land Registry's register. Unregistered land follows unregistered principles, but indemnity insurance is commonly used for title defects. Modification or discharge of obsolete covenants is possible via sections 84(1)(a)-(c) LPA 1925 through Upper Tribunal application if no injury to benefited land or compensation suffices, with over 1,200 applications annually reflecting practical limitations on perpetual restrictions.

Canada and Other Common Law Jurisdictions

In Canada, the enforceability of real covenants running with freehold land adheres to principles derived from English precedents, distinguishing between burdens and benefits, and between positive and negative obligations. The burden of a negative (restrictive) covenant may bind successors in equity if it is negative in substance, the parties intended it to run with the land, the successor had notice of it, and it benefits an identified dominant . This equitable enforcement stems from (1848), which Canadian courts apply, requiring the covenant to touch and concern the land by affecting its use or value. In contrast, the burden of a positive covenant—requiring affirmative action, such as maintenance—does not run at or in equity against successors, following Austerberry v. Corporation of Oldham (1885), absent statutory intervention or mutual benefit schemes. Canadian cases like Re Hunt and Bell affirm the necessity of a dominant for enforcement, while Page v. Campbell holds that the covenantee must retain benefiting land for the benefit to pass. Benefits of covenants run more readily: at , only original parties enforce, but in equity, assignees may if the covenant touches and concerns the dominant land and is annexed via words of covenant or building scheme, as in Rogers v. Hosegood (), adopted in . Registration on title, mandatory in most provinces under land titles or registry systems, provides and binds successors, though Torrens systems in provinces like and prioritize indefeasible title subject to registered interests. Provincial statutes, such as Ontario's Planning Act (R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13), facilitate subdivision covenants enforceable against future owners, often via developer-imposed restrictions on use, density, or aesthetics. Courts criticize the rigid positive-negative distinction for causing inequities, such as original owners remaining liable post-sale, prompting calls for reform like extending equity to positive burdens or adopting "land obligations" akin to English proposals. In , covenants follow similar rules but are adapted to the Torrens system prevalent nationwide, where registration on the land title under state legislation (e.g., Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic)) ensures restrictive covenants run as burdens against successors if they touch and concern the benefited land, show intent to bind, and provide notice via the folio. Positive covenants generally do not run unless part of a statutory scheme, such as strata titles or positive covenants under Queensland's Land Title Act 1994 (s. 185), which allow affirmative obligations to attach upon registration until discharged. Enforcement requires the covenant not to be personal and to benefit land, not individuals; breaches may yield injunctions or , though limits overly broad restrictions. New Zealand's approach mirrors Australia's Torrens influence under the Land Transfer Act 2017, permitting both positive and negative land covenants to run upon registration, imposing burdens or benefits on specified land parcels. Negative covenants restrain uses like building height, while positives mandate actions such as ; both bind successors if they concern the land and are not void under the Property Law Act 2007 (s. 147) for purposes like restricting low-income housing. Courts enforce via or , but amendments require consent or to reflect modern needs, avoiding perpetual "dead hand" control. Other jurisdictions like retain English-derived rules, with burdens of restrictive covenants enforceable in equity against purchasers with notice, though statutory overlays under state transfer acts prioritize registered deeds.

Exclusionary and Discriminatory Covenants

Historical Implementation and Purposes

Exclusionary and discriminatory covenants emerged in the late 19th century but gained widespread implementation in the early 20th century as a private mechanism to enforce residential segregation following judicial invalidation of public racial zoning ordinances. The first recorded racial covenant appeared in a 1891 deed in Chicago, restricting occupancy to white persons of non-African descent, though sporadic use occurred in cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles prior to 1910. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Buchanan v. Warley (1917), which struck down Louisville's racial zoning law as violating the Fourteenth Amendment, prompted real estate developers and homeowners' associations to shift to private deed restrictions as an alternative tool for exclusion. By the 1920s, these covenants proliferated in northern and western cities, with developers incorporating standardized clauses into subdivision plats to bind all future buyers, often promoted by the National Association of Real Estate Boards through model forms that barred sales or leases to "any person not of the Caucasian race" or specified groups like Jews and Asians. Implementation involved embedding perpetual clauses in property deeds that "ran with the land," allowing through lawsuits by neighboring property owners to enjoin violations, such as attempted to prohibited parties. In practice, covenants covered entire neighborhoods; for instance, by the , historians estimate that up to 80% of residential properties in and similar proportions in and included such restrictions. professionals drafted and marketed these as essential for "," disseminating templates via trade publications and legal advisors to ensure uniformity and judicial enforceability, with courts upholding them as valid contracts until mid-century challenges. was proactive: vigilance committees monitored , and violations triggered injunctions, fines, or forfeiture clauses, creating a self-policing system among white homeowners. The primary purposes were to preserve racial, ethnic, and religious homogeneity in neighborhoods, thereby safeguarding perceived property values and social stability against demographic shifts driven by and migration. Proponents, including developers and realtors, argued that influxes of , immigrants, or other minorities would depress market prices and degrade community standards, drawing on contemporaneous pseudoscientific racial hierarchies and economic fears amid the Great Migration (1910–1970), during which six million Black Southerners moved north. Historical language explicitly linked exclusion to value protection, stating aims like preventing "un desirability" from non-white occupancy, with evidence from period journals showing covenants as tools to signal exclusivity to white buyers and deter integration. While some apologists framed them as neutral property rights exercises, causal analysis reveals their discriminatory intent rooted in maintaining in housing markets, as public records and litigation transcripts confirm repeated targeting of specific groups to avert "invasion and succession" patterns observed in transitioning urban blocks. Early judicial challenges to exclusionary covenants in the United States tested their constitutionality under the of the Fifth Amendment and later the Fourteenth Amendment. In Corrigan v. Buckley (1926), the dismissed constitutional objections to racially restrictive covenants, holding that private agreements among property owners to exclude certain racial groups did not violate federal rights, as they involved no . This ruling affirmed the enforceability of such covenants through private lawsuits and lower court judgments, enabling their proliferation in urban areas to maintain residential segregation. Subsequent challenges in the 1930s and 1940s, often backed by the , sought to undermine covenant enforcement by highlighting violations of civil rights statutes and equal protection principles. A pivotal case, Lee v. Hansberry (1940), addressed procedural issues in covenant suits but did not directly invalidate the restrictions, though it exposed weaknesses in unanimous consent requirements for covenant bindingness. These efforts culminated in (1948), where the Supreme Court, in a 6-0 decision, ruled that state judicial enforcement of racially restrictive covenants constituted prohibited by the of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court clarified that while the covenants themselves were private agreements and not inherently unconstitutional, courts' role in decreeing or damages to uphold them violated constitutional protections against . This intervention effectively nullified the legal mechanism for enforcing discriminatory covenants nationwide, as consolidated with McGhee v. Sipes from . Post-Shelley rulings reinforced the unenforceability doctrine, with federal and consistently refusing to lend judicial power to discriminatory restrictions. For instance, lower courts dismissed suits seeking to enforce covenants against non-white buyers, citing the state action bar. Although Shelley did not retroactively void existing covenants or require their removal from deeds, it shifted the burden to private negotiation or voluntary release, diminishing their practical impact. Judicial interventions thus transitioned from validation to prohibition of enforcement, paving the way for legislative measures like the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which declared such covenants void and unenforceable as a matter of , prohibiting in sales and rentals based on race. This combination of and statutory abolition addressed the causal role of covenants in perpetuating segregation, though remnants persisted in property records until modern title-clearing efforts.

Modern Validity and Perspectives

In the United States, racially restrictive covenants became judicially unenforceable following the Supreme Court's 1948 decision in , which determined that court enforcement of such private agreements constitutes state action violating the of the [Fourteenth Amendment](/page/Fourteenth Amendment). The federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 further prohibited discrimination in housing, including references to racial restrictions in real estate transactions, rendering such covenants void as against . Although these provisions remain in approximately 80% of property deeds in some historically affected cities like as of 2021, they hold no legal weight and cannot restrict sales or occupancy. State legislatures have increasingly addressed the persistence of these obsolete clauses in land records, which can perpetuate stigma despite their invalidity. For instance, enacted in 2020 allowing owners to disclaim discriminatory language via , while followed in 2021 with a process to strike such covenants from without approval. By 2023, at least 10 states had similar statutes, motivated by concerns over historical records influencing modern perceptions of property values and community equity, though title insurers like the American Land Title Association emphasize that these clauses do not affect marketability or insurability. Contemporary perspectives on discriminatory covenants underscore their role in entrenching , with empirical studies linking their historical prevalence to persistent disparities in homeownership rates and neighborhood demographics as of 2023. Research indicates that areas once bound by such covenants exhibit higher white homeownership and lower minority presence today, attributing this to reduced interracial mixing during the mid-20th century, though causal effects are debated due to confounding factors like . Proponents of argue that retaining the language in deeds symbolically reinforces inequality, while critics of overemphasis on historical covenants highlight that private property rights, absent state enforcement, align with voluntary association principles upheld in earlier cases like Corrigan v. Buckley (1926). In jurisdictions outside the U.S., such as , general restrictive covenants remain enforceable if reasonable and not contrary to anti-discrimination statutes like the , but explicitly exclusionary ones based on race are void for public policy reasons, with no widespread legacy equivalent to U.S. racial covenants.

Title Covenants

Nature and Warranties Provided

Title covenants, also referred to as covenants of title, constitute express or implied contractual assurances embedded within a deed by which the grantor warrants to the grantee the validity and quality of the property title being transferred. These covenants serve to allocate risk between parties in real property conveyances, providing the grantee with remedies—typically damages—for breaches arising from title defects, and they originated from English common law traditions adapted in jurisdictions like the United States. In a general warranty deed, which offers the broadest protection, these covenants are divided into present covenants (relating to the state of title at conveyance) and future covenants (extending protection against subsequent claims), with breaches of the former actionable immediately and the latter running with the land to benefit successors. The standard set of six covenants of title, as recognized in many U.S. states under principles, includes:
  • Covenant of : The grantor affirms ownership and lawful possession of the estate conveyed, ensuring the grantor holds free from superior claims at the time of transfer. A breach occurs if the grantor lacks such seisin, entitling the grantee to measured by the property's value.
  • Covenant of right to convey: The grantor guarantees legal authority to pass clear , distinct from seisin by addressing any lack of power due to restrictions like spousal consent or duties. This present covenant protects against immediate impediments to conveyance.
  • Covenant against encumbrances: The grantor promises the property is free from undisclosed liens, easements, or other burdens except those specified in the , with recoverable for the diminution in value caused by such encumbrances.
Future-oriented covenants provide ongoing assurances:
  • Covenant of quiet enjoyment: The grantor warrants the grantee's peaceful possession without lawful by paramount holders, with remedies available upon actual or constructive .
  • Covenant of : The grantor commits to defending the against all reasonable claims of superior right, including indemnification for losses from successful adverse actions, and this binds successors indefinitely until breached.
  • Covenant of further assurances: The grantor agrees to execute any additional documents or actions necessary to perfect or clarify the at no cost to the grantee, reinforcing the deed's efficacy without creating new substantive warranties.
These warranties are implied by in certain jurisdictions for standard warranty deeds, such as Florida's statutory form enacted in 1929, which incorporates full covenants unless expressly modified, thereby streamlining conveyances while preserving buyer protections. However, special warranty deeds limit covenants to defects arising during the grantor's ownership period, reflecting a narrower assumption. Enforcement typically involves suits for , with calculated based on the covenant type—e.g., full purchase price recovery for total failure of title under future covenants—prioritizing empirical assessment of actual harm over punitive measures.

Jurisdictional Differences

In , title covenants have been largely standardized and modernized through statute. Under the , section 76, certain conveyances implied covenants for title, including assurances of good right to convey, freedom from encumbrances, and quiet enjoyment, applicable to dispositions for valuable consideration. However, the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1994 superseded these with a regime of implied covenants triggered by phrases such as "full title guarantee" or "limited title guarantee" in transfers of registered or unregistered land. A full title guarantee implies that the disposer has the right to transfer the interest, will ensure the recipient receives title free from undisclosed encumbrances (with liability for both pre- and post-disposition charges except those disclosed), and will execute further assurances; limited title guarantee excludes liability for pre-disposition encumbrances known or registered as of the last good root of title. These covenants are uniform across dispositions, emphasizing disclosure over absolute warranty, and apply prospectively without running with the land beyond the immediate parties. In the United States, title covenants remain rooted in but exhibit significant state-specific variations, often implied by in warranty deeds rather than through uniform phrasing. Most states imply five core covenants in general warranty deeds: (ownership and possession), right to convey, freedom from encumbrances, (defense against title defects), and quiet enjoyment. For instance, statutes imply these covenants in statutory warranty deeds, extending protection against or title loss with remedies including damages measured by purchase price. New York limits implied covenants in short-form deeds to four (, right to convey, against encumbrances, quiet enjoyment), excluding general unless expressly stated. Some jurisdictions, like , favor grant deeds implying only covenants against grantor's post-conveyance encumbrances, shifting more risk to buyers via . Marketable record acts in over 20 states, such as Michigan's 1945 act, extinguish ancient covenants after 40 years unless preserved, reducing perpetual liability unlike the English system's disclosure focus. These covenants generally bind successors if the deed so provides but are treated as contractual warranties rather than automatic guarantees. In and other jurisdictions like and , practices blend English statutory influences with local reforms, often incorporating systems that prioritize registered over covenants. Canadian provinces such as imply covenants similar to U.S. warranty deeds in transfers of , including and freedom from encumbrances under the Land Titles Act, but registration cures many defects, limiting covenant enforcement. ’s system under state statutes like ' Real Property Act 1900 minimizes reliance on covenants by guaranteeing indefeasible upon registration, with covenants implied only in limited unregistered dealings and compensated via state assurance funds rather than seller liability. These differences reflect a shift toward systemic title assurance over personal warranties, contrasting U.S. variability and English guarantee phrasing.

Modern Contexts and Applications

Homeowners Associations and Planned Communities

Homeowners associations (HOAs) in the United States commonly utilize restrictive covenants embedded in covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs), which form a binding legal document recorded against titles in planned communities and subdivisions. These covenants impose limitations on use, such as architectural standards, requirements, and prohibitions on certain activities, to promote uniformity and collective maintenance of shared amenities like pools, roads, and . In planned communities, developers initially establish these covenants in the community's declaration, which runs with the land and binds subsequent owners upon purchase. As of 2024, approximately 369,000 HOAs govern 77.1 million residents across 33.6% of U.S. housing stock, with collective property values exceeding $12.9 trillion. HOAs enforce covenants through elected boards that issue notices of violation, impose fines, place liens, or pursue litigation for non-compliance, aiming to prevent negative externalities like unkempt properties that could diminish neighborhood appeal. Courts generally uphold these private agreements absent violations, as seen in cases where selective or inconsistent enforcement may lead to defenses, rendering covenants unenforceable if prior violations were overlooked. Empirical analyses indicate that covenants in HOA-governed communities correlate with stabilized or enhanced property values by mitigating spillover effects from distressed neighboring properties, particularly in cases of moderate distress. For instance, properties in HOAs experience relatively less value depreciation from nearby foreclosures compared to non-HOA areas, supporting the rationale that collective restrictions internalize costs associated with individual decisions. However, challenges persist, including litigation over implied covenants or equitable bars like relative hardship, as affirmed in rulings such as Cole v. Davis (2023), where Alabama's enforced subdivision restrictions despite owner objections.

Commercial and Leasehold Covenants

Commercial leasehold covenants refer to binding promises incorporated into lease agreements for business properties, regulating tenant obligations such as permissible uses, , , and rent payment, as well as duties like quiet enjoyment and structural repairs. In jurisdictions like , these covenants derive from contract law but are treated as hybrid property interests, enabling enforcement against successors via privity of estate if they touch and concern the land—meaning they affect the demised premises' nature, quality, value, or mode of occupation or enjoyment. Unlike freehold covenants, leasehold ones benefit from dual enforcement mechanisms: , which perpetually binds original parties to all express terms regardless of assignment, and privity of estate, which extends only to covenants impacting the estate to assignees or subtenants during their tenure. In Canadian provinces, commercial leases are governed by principles supplemented by provincial statutes, with no uniform federal code; for instance, and courts uphold covenants restricting trade or requiring continuous operation if explicitly stated and reasonable, often enforcing them via injunctions to prevent economic harm to adjoining units. Positive covenants, such as obligations to operate a continuously or maintain specific opening hours, bind successors only if the lease expressly so provides, as Canadian courts distinguish personal from appurtenant duties to avoid overburdening assignments. Negative covenants, like prohibitions on certain uses or subletting without , more readily run with the estate, with landlords retaining rights to withhold assignment consent unreasonably unless the lease deems it absolute. Recent developments under Canada's Competition Act, amended in 2024 and applying to covenants from December 15, 2024, scrutinize exclusivity clauses—where landlords promise not to lease nearby space to competitors—and other restrictive property controls if they prevent market entry or lessen competition substantially, exposing violators to Bureau investigations, fines up to 3% of global revenues, or private damages claims. These rules apply retroactively to existing leases, prompting reviews of radius restrictions in retail centers, though greenfield exemptions allow such covenants if the burdened land was undeveloped before June 23, 2022. In other jurisdictions like England and Wales, the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 reformed privity by automatically releasing assignors from future liability upon lease transfer, requiring instead authorized guarantees for commercial viability, a shift absent in Canada where original tenants remain liable indefinitely under privity of contract. Breaches of commercial covenants typically yield remedies like specific performance for unique obligations (e.g., repair covenants) or damages calculated on lost rental value, with landlords able to re-enter or terminate for material non-compliance under express forfeiture clauses, though Canadian courts mandate relief against forfeiture for curable breaches to preserve estates. Section 17 notices under equivalent UK provisions, notifying assignees of fixed charges within six months of assignment, underscore enforcement timelines, paralleling Canadian practices where prompt notice preserves claims against guarantors. Overall, these covenants facilitate risk allocation in volatile commercial markets by tying obligations to property interests, though evolving competition scrutiny demands precise drafting to balance proprietary stability with antitrust compliance.

Recent Legislative Adjustments

In the United States, legislative efforts since 2020 have increasingly focused on mechanisms to expunge discriminatory restrictive covenants from property records, addressing the persistence of unenforceable language originating from early 20th-century practices. These covenants, invalidated federally by the Supreme Court's decision in (1948) and reinforced by the Fair Housing Act of 1968, remain in many deeds, potentially complicating title transfers or perpetuating historical stigma despite lacking legal effect. California's Assembly Bill 1466 (2020), codified in Government Code §§ 12956.1–12956.3, requires county recorders to implement programs for redacting such language and permits owners to file a "Restrictive Covenant Modification" form to strike discriminatory provisions without judicial approval, effective for filings after January 1, 2022. Similarly, Florida Senate Bill 676 (2020) explicitly extinguishes discriminatory restrictions in deeds and other instruments, allowing recorders to remove or void them upon request. The Uniform Law Commission approved a Model Act on Repudiation of Discriminatory Land Use Covenants in July 2023, offering states a standardized process for property owners or associations to file notices repudiating such covenants, preserving chain-of-title clarity while affirming their nullity under modern anti-discrimination laws; this model has influenced pending or adopted reforms in multiple jurisdictions, with support from the American Land Title Association to mitigate title insurance risks. Pennsylvania's House Bill 1289 (enacted 2023) established a streamlined, low-cost procedure for removing racially restrictive language from deeds via county recorder filings, bypassing court involvement for most cases. These measures prioritize administrative efficiency over litigation, reflecting empirical recognition that residual language can impose non-trivial transaction costs, such as extended due diligence or buyer hesitancy, even absent enforceability. Shifting to broader restrictive covenants, California's Assembly Bill 1050 (signed October 16, 2025) amends Civil Code § 36635 to extend expedited judicial clearance processes—previously available only for residential properties—to commercial parcels targeted for incorporating units, allowing courts to void outdated restrictions hindering multifamily or mixed-use projects upon owner and . This adjustment responds to housing shortages by facilitating overrides of covenants limiting or use, provided they conflict with state planning goals, while requiring evidence of or public benefit; it builds on prior laws like the Density Bonus Law but targets deed-embedded barriers directly. In HOA-governed communities, states like and have updated statutes (e.g., Florida SB 154, 2024) to clarify amendment thresholds for covenants, mandating votes and disclosures for changes affecting common areas, amid rising disputes over aging CC&Rs. These reforms underscore a legislative trend toward adaptability in covenant enforcement, weighing private agreements against evolving urban and economic pressures without wholesale invalidation.

Economic Rationale and Benefits

Preservation of Property Values

Restrictive covenants preserve values by contractually binding owners to uniform standards that mitigate risks of , such as bans on incompatible uses (e.g., industrial activities in residential zones) or mandates for upkeep like lawn maintenance and exterior approvals. These provisions address problems inherent in uncoordinated ownership, where individual neglect or divergent uses—such as converting homes to rooming houses—could impose externalities like , visual , or reduced desirability, thereby stabilizing expectations of future value. By enforcing homogeneity in design, density, and behavior, covenants reduce uncertainty for buyers, fostering a premium in market pricing as evidenced by models that isolate their marginal contribution beyond location or public . Empirical analyses consistently quantify this effect through price differentials in comparable properties. A study of U.S. subdivisions found deed restrictions yield a statistically significant positive marginal housing price, persisting after controls for lot size, age, and amenities, with premiums ranging from 5-10% in controlled samples. Similarly, research on restrictive covenant associations (RCAs) demonstrates they command higher per-square-foot values than unrestricted peers, attributing gains to enforced rules against rent control or overcrowding that might erode neighborhood quality. Community associations, which operationalize covenants via homeowner oversight, correlate with elevated values via mechanisms like pooled reserves for common areas, where properties in such regimes appreciate faster than non-covenanted equivalents, per longitudinal data from Virginia Tech. Long-term persistence underscores causal efficacy: historical covenants, even post-enforceability lapses, sustained price advantages for decades by embedding norms of exclusivity and maintenance, as tracked in urban housing datasets. However, realization depends on enforceability; lax or amendment thresholds can dilute benefits, allowing value erosion if dominant owners prioritize short-term gains over collective stability. While fees for enforcement impose costs, net effects favor preservation, with studies isolating covenants' role in countering from heterogeneous development patterns.

Mitigation of Externalities

Restrictive covenants in serve to mitigate negative externalities by contractually prohibiting land uses that impose uncompensated costs on neighboring properties, such as visual , , or incompatible commercial activities in residential zones. These agreements internalize externalities—effects like reduced values or increased maintenance burdens that spill over from one parcel to others—by binding current and future owners to reciprocal restrictions, thereby aligning individual incentives with collective welfare and averting free-rider problems where one owner might otherwise exploit shared neighborhood benefits without contributing to their upkeep. Unlike sporadic lawsuits, which address harms reactively and inefficiently due to high transaction costs, covenants provide proactive, uniform rules enforceable through private mechanisms like homeowners associations, reducing the incidence of disputes and preserving communal standards. In practice, covenants often mandate architectural uniformity, limit building heights or densities, and bar nuisances like excessive lighting or that could diminish adjacent ' utility or market appeal. For instance, in planned developments, prohibitions on short-term rentals or have been shown to curb transient occupancy externalities, such as and transient wear on common areas, thereby stabilizing long-term resident preferences. Empirical analyses indicate that such restrictions correlate with lower volatility and higher overall values; a study of subdivisions found that covenant-enforced uniformity reduces negative spillovers, enhancing predictability and deterring opportunistic uses that erode collective asset values. This internalization extends to positive externalities as well, where covenants can require contributions to shared maintenance, ensuring that benefits like landscaped buffers or features are sustained without defection by non-contributors. The of covenants in mitigation stems from their voluntary origin and adaptability, contrasting with rigid public that may overlook localized preferences or generate holdout problems. Private developers, motivated by resale values, embed covenants to signal low-risk environments, as evidenced in master-planned communities like , where tailored rules on and vehicle storage minimized aesthetic and operational externalities, fostering sustained appreciation rates exceeding regional averages by 5-10% in comparable periods. However, relies on vigilant associations, and lapses can reintroduce externalities if covenants lack perpetual "touch and concern" clauses tying restrictions to the land itself. Overall, by facilitating Coasean at the subdivision stage, covenants achieve Pareto improvements over unregulated , where externalities might otherwise lead to suboptimal fragmentation of interests.

Criticisms and Debates

Conflicts with Property Rights

Restrictive covenants often generate conflicts with core property rights, particularly the rights to use, enjoy, and alienate land associated with ownership, by imposing enduring limitations that bind successive owners without their direct consent. While absolute grants the broadest possible , subject only to government powers like and taxation, covenants encumber this title by creating private servitudes that restrict activities such as building heights, commercial uses, or occupancy types, potentially diminishing the property's and marketability. Courts recognize these encumbrances as valid when voluntarily assumed through purchase, yet they can indirectly restrain alienation by deterring buyers averse to the burdens, though direct prohibitions on transfer violate the rule against restraints on alienation. A prominent historical conflict arose with racially restrictive covenants, which barred sales or occupancy to non-whites, clashing with constitutional equal protection principles. In Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), the U.S. held that while such private agreements were not inherently void, state court enforcement constituted impermissible under the Fourteenth Amendment, thereby invalidating judicial remedies for their breach and protecting buyers' rights against discriminatory exclusions. This decision underscored how covenants, intended as contractual tools, could undermine civil rights when enforcing them perpetuated segregation, leading to widespread invalidation of similar provisions post-1948. In contemporary settings, particularly within homeowners associations (HOAs), covenants enforced via majority vote can infringe on individual , such as freedoms of expression or personal use, prompting legal challenges when rules prohibit political signs, solar panels, or home-based businesses deemed essential by owners. For instance, covenants conflicting with free speech protections may be deemed unenforceable if they suppress non-commercial displays, as HOAs lack authority to override constitutional limits. Additionally, overly broad or arbitrary restrictions risk nullification under doctrines, especially if they hinder reasonable enjoyment or impose undue economic burdens without reciprocal benefits, highlighting tensions between collective governance and individual . Courts typically resolve these by assessing and , upholding covenants that serve legitimate interests like value preservation while voiding those that excessively curtail . Conflicts also emerge between private covenants and public regulations, such as ordinances, where stricter covenants prevail without infringing landowner rights, but laxer public rules may render covenants obsolete under changed circumstances doctrines, allowing termination if enforcement no longer benefits the . Empirical critiques note that perpetual covenants can stifle to economic shifts, reducing overall property values in rigid neighborhoods compared to flexible ones, though proponents argue these self-imposed limits prevent externalities better than fragmented oversight.

Public Policy Overrides and Empirical Critiques

Restrictive covenants in are subject to invalidation or non-enforcement when they contravene , as determined by courts or legislatures. A landmark example is the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in (1948), which ruled that judicial enforcement of racially restrictive covenants constitutes under the Fourteenth Amendment, thereby violating the and rendering such covenants unenforceable in courts despite their private origins. This precedent established that private agreements cannot be upheld if they perpetuate discrimination conflicting with constitutional principles. Similar overrides apply to covenants imposing unreasonable restraints on alienation or use, where courts balance private intent against broader societal interests, often deeming them void if they unduly hinder property transfer or economic productivity. Public policy interventions also arise in conflicts between covenants and governmental regulations, such as zoning ordinances. For instance, municipalities may enact laws that supersede deed restrictions to promote land uses aligned with community needs, like affordable housing, potentially triggering takings claims if compensation is not provided. In recent years, states have legislated overrides of restrictive covenants to address housing shortages; for example, reforms allowing accessory dwelling units or denser development in single-family zones have preempted certain community association rules, prioritizing public welfare over private restrictions. Empirical critiques of covenants highlight limitations in their purported benefits, particularly in preserving property values and mitigating externalities. While some analyses show positive price premiums associated with covenant-restricted properties, others reveal inconsistent or negligible impacts. A study examining subdivision characteristics found that the marginal price effect of deed restrictions persists but diminishes when controlling for locational factors, suggesting that covenants may not independently drive value as strongly as claimed. Further evidence questions the long-term efficacy of covenants, especially in homeowners associations (HOAs). Research indicates that properties in HOA-governed communities, reliant on enforceable covenants, experience inferior appreciation rates compared to non-HOA counterparts, potentially due to high fees, litigation costs, and rigid rules stifling adaptation to market changes. Additionally, historical racially restrictive covenants demonstrate enduring negative externalities, with areas once burdened showing depressed land prices and slower racial integration decades after invalidation, underscoring how covenants can entrench inefficiencies rather than resolve them. These findings suggest that while covenants aim to internalize externalities, their enforcement can impose unintended costs, including reduced flexibility and higher transaction expenses, warranting scrutiny against public policy goals.

References

  1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/covenant
  2. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/covenant_that_runs_with_the_land
  3. https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/property-law-real-covenants.html
  4. https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/articles/easements-covenants-servitudes/
  5. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/restrictive_covenant
  6. https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/siwp/Rose.pdf
  7. https://www.fanniemae.com/about-us/what-we-do/homeownership/restrictive-covenants
  8. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/real_covenant
  9. https://turnerpropertytwo.lawbooks.cali.org/chapter/covenants/
  10. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/8-107-6009?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29
  11. https://www.wardandsmith.com/articles/restrictive-covenants-what-are-they-and-why-should-you-care
  12. https://jdadvising.com/real-covenants-and-the-privity-requirement/
  13. https://opencasebook.org/casebooks/510-open-source-property/resources/7.2.1-creation-of-an-enforceable-restrictive-covenant/
  14. https://www.atgf.com/tools-publications/pubs/covenants-conditions-and-restrictions
  15. https://www.lexplug.com/topics/property-law/covenants-servitudes
  16. https://passyourbarexam.substack.com/p/equitable-servitudes-vs-restrictive-22-03-24
  17. https://lawshelf.com/coursewarecontentview/equitable-servitudes
  18. https://thelegallock.com/test/restrictive-and-affirmative-covenants-in-property-law-legal-principles-and-enforceability/
  19. https://legal-resources.uslegalforms.com/r/real-covenant
  20. https://www.upcounsel.com/contract-conditions-and-contract-covenants
  21. https://oliverfisher.co.uk/restrictive-positive-covenants/
  22. https://parissmith.co.uk/blog/enforcement-of-positive-covenants/
  23. https://osborneslaw.com/blog/positive-covenants-and-successors-in-title/
  24. https://st-philips.com/news-events/land-obligations-enforcing-positive-covenants-against-successors-in-title-to-freehold-land/
  25. https://www.kdllaw.com/legal-updates/deeds-of-covenant-why-are-they-needed-and-what-happens-if-one-is-not-completed
  26. https://www.pathwayconveyancing.co.uk/blog/what-is-a-positive-covenant
  27. https://www.ochhoalaw.com/covenant-enforcement-in-common-interest-communities/
  28. https://emlaw.co.uk/commercial-property-law/positive-covenants-solicitors/
  29. https://www.lucaslaw.com/newsletters/real-estate/real-estate-and-restrictive-covenants
  30. https://ezerwilliamsonlaw.com/enforcing-restrictive-land-covenants/
  31. https://jacksons.law/news/can-a-neighbour-enforce-a-restrictive-covenant/
  32. https://beresfordlaw.com/are-old-restrictive-covenants-ccrs-still-enforceable/
  33. https://www.rocketmortgage.com/learn/restrictive-covenants
  34. https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/restrictive-covenants-on-real-property.html
  35. https://www.porterfirm.com/blog/2024/05/are-restrictive-covenants-legal/
  36. https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/archives/neponsit_emigrant.htm
  37. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/law-and-history-review/article/actions-of-covenant-12001330/4E97C42B7D5168F1969B4EC838CBB80B
  38. https://academic.oup.com/book/7682/chapter/152732113
  39. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01440365.2021.1996037
  40. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3587&context=ndlr
  41. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=13434&context=mlr
  42. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a938b4060d03e5f6b82bc89
  43. https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1341&context=cklawreview
  44. https://lawlibrarycollections.umn.edu/classic-cases-property-tulk-v-moxhay
  45. https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/property/property-law-keyed-to-dukeminier/private-land-use-controls-the-law-of-servitudes/tulk-v-moxhay-2/
  46. https://www.britannica.com/money/restrictive-covenant
  47. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/44-45/41/part/II/crossheading/covenants-for-title/enacted
  48. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/section/80
  49. https://www.quimbee.com/cases/neponsit-property-owners-association-v-emigrant-industrial-savings-bank
  50. https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/property/property-law-keyed-to-cribbet/interests-in-land-of-another-and-in-natural-resources-affecting-anothers-land/neponsit-property-owners-assn-v-emigrant-industrial-sav-bank/
  51. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/part/II/crossheading/covenants
  52. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8560/
  53. https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/tulk-v-moxhay.php
  54. https://www.quimbee.com/cases/tulk-v-moxhay
  55. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/6-100-4396?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29
  56. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/property-law/easements-rights-covenants/positive-covenants
  57. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/positive-covenants-binding-successors-in-title
  58. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/section/33/notes
  59. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/is-a-restrictive-covenant-still-deemed-to-bind-a-successor-in-title-if-it-has-not-been-registered-and
  60. https://use-land-property-data.service.gov.uk/datasets/res_cov
  61. https://cba.org/sections/real-property/resources/positive-and-negative-freehold-covenants-complicated-case-history-current-criticisms-suggested/
  62. https://www.aicanada.ca/article/covenants-running-with-the-land/
  63. https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/guides-and-resources/guides/all-guides/restrictive-covenants
  64. https://www.titlesqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ltpm-part-31.pdf
  65. https://www.mondaq.com/australia/conveyancing/1425158/enforceability-of-positive-covenants
  66. https://www.linz.govt.nz/guidance/land-registration/land-registration-guide/land-covenants
  67. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2007/0091/latest/DLM3162600.html
  68. https://www.mcveaghfleming.co.nz/articles/land-covenants-the-ability-to-amend-to-reflect-modern-developments
  69. https://knowthelaw.com.au/covenant-title-land-mean/
  70. https://mappingprejudice.umn.edu/racial-covenants/what-is-a-covenant
  71. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2657609
  72. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscpe/vol22num3/ch11.pdf
  73. https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/frbp/assets/consumer-finance/discussion-papers/dp19-05.pdf
  74. https://depts.washington.edu/civilr/covenants_report.htm
  75. https://www.npr.org/2021/11/17/1049052531/racial-covenants-housing-discrimination
  76. https://advocacy.caionline.org/history-of-racially-restrictive-covenants/
  77. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1501&context=nulr
  78. https://liberalarts.vt.edu/news/articles/2023/06/liberalarts-racial-discrimination-in-housing-covenants.html
  79. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/271/323/
  80. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/corrigan-v-buckley
  81. https://encyclopedia.densho.org/Restrictive_covenants/
  82. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/334/1/
  83. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/334us1
  84. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2789&context=wlr
  85. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/shelley_v_kraemer_%281948%29
  86. https://ontheline.trincoll.edu/restricting.html
  87. https://www.aclupa.org/legislation/hb-1289-removing-racially-restrictive-deed-covenants/
  88. https://www.alta.org/advocacy/advocacy-issues/discriminatory-covenants
  89. https://aradhyasood.github.io/Sood_Solberg_Covenants_July2023.pdf
  90. https://www.atlantafed.org/-/media/documents/news/conferences/2019/12/12/5th-biennial-real-estate-conference/sood_racial-discrimination-housing-covenants.pdf
  91. https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/insights/publications/2024/07/restrictive-covenants-uk
  92. https://umaine.edu/svt/wp-content/uploads/sites/105/2015/05/DeedsTypes.pdf
  93. https://barneswalker.com/a-guide-to-different-types-of-deeds-in-florida/
  94. https://www.grcclaw.com/general-warranty-deed/
  95. https://shuffieldlowman.com/blog/types-of-deeds-in-florida/
  96. https://qgtlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/pub-Deed-Covenants-of-Title.pdf
  97. https://andersonadvisors.com/blog/warranty-deed/
  98. https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/basics-real-estate-title-deeds
  99. https://www.hklaw.com/-/media/files/insights/publications/2024/05/special_warranty_deeds_a_preview.pdf
  100. https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3914&context=umlr
  101. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/section/76
  102. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/36/part/I
  103. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/8-101-3272
  104. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/title-guarantee-covenants-for-title
  105. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/realestate/12/property-deeds-and-real-property.asp
  106. https://hub.associaonline.com/blog/hoa-rules
  107. https://www.nar.realtor/magazine/real-estate-news/law-and-ethics/hoa-covenants
  108. https://foundation.caionline.org/publications/factbook/statistical-review/
  109. https://blog.lawfirmcarolinas.com/failure-to-enforce-restrictive-covenants-may-make-them-unenforceable/
  110. https://www.lincolninst.edu/app/uploads/2024/04/2352_1692_Cheung_WP14RC1.pdf
  111. https://foundation.caionline.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/VATech_Property_Values.pdf
  112. https://law.justia.com/cases/alabama/supreme-court/2023/2022-0723.html
  113. https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2001CanLIIDocs160
  114. https://www.dv-law.com/docs/default-source/Articles/pdf_3-13.pdf
  115. https://www.mglegal.co.uk/what-s-the-difference-between-privity-of-contract-and-privity-of-estate/
  116. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/got-privity-understanding-privity-of-64256/
  117. https://mcmillan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Enforceability-of-Covenants-to-Open-and-Continuous-Operating-Covenants.pdf
  118. https://www.lexpert.ca/news/legal-faq/what-are-the-rights-of-a-commercial-lease-tenant/383651
  119. https://www.landmarkcre.ca/blog/commercial-real-estate-leases-law-negotiation-in-canada/
  120. https://competition-bureau.canada.ca/en/how-we-foster-competition/education-and-outreach/competitor-property-controls-and-competition-act
  121. https://www.bennettjones.com/Insights/Blogs/Key-Changes-to-Property-Control-Rules-What-Landlords-and-Tenants-Need-to-Know-Before-October-7-2024
  122. https://lerners.ca/insights/how-recent-competition-act-amendments-are-shaping-commercial-leases
  123. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/ukpga/1995/30
  124. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/release-from-landlords-covenants-ltca-1995
  125. https://www.bennettjones.com/Blogs-Section/Dont-Walk-Away-Landlord-Remedies-on-Lease-Repudiation
  126. https://www.higgsllp.co.uk/articles/commercial-property-leases-section-17-notices
  127. https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/bec1c4ca/thinking-of-going-exclusive-competition-act-amendments-target-property-controls
  128. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/managing-discriminatory-restrictive-covenants-all-50-states-yxuac
  129. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/real-estate-news/article254630092.html
  130. https://www.alta.org/news-and-publications/news/20230718-ALTA-Supports-ULCs-Model-Act-for-Discriminatory-Covenants
  131. http://www.aclupa.org/legislation/hb-1289-removing-racially-restrictive-deed-covenants/
  132. https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/10/new-california-law-expands-clearance-of-restrictive-covenants
  133. https://www.condocontrol.com/blog/new-condo-and-hoa-laws-for-us-states/
  134. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1504182
  135. https://le.uwpress.org/content/82/4/500.full.pdf
  136. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225804188_The_Housing_Price_Impact_of_Covenant_Restrictions_and_Other_Subdivision_Characteristics
  137. https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/covenant.pdf
  138. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009411909690008X
  139. https://www.princeton.edu/~erossi/EHE.pdf
  140. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/4227/Alternatives_to_Zoning___Covenants__Nuisance_Rules__and_Fines_as_Land_Use_Controls.pdf
  141. https://jrap.scholasticahq.com/article/8818-internalizing-externalities-through-private-zoning-the-case-of-walt-disney-company-s-celebration-florida/attachment/21826.pdf
  142. https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/132444/files/10-2-1.pdf
  143. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/local-governments-use-of-covenants
  144. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=13622&context=journal_articles
  145. https://www.iaao.org/wp-content/uploads/Fee_Simple_2019.pdf
  146. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/restraint_on_alienation
  147. https://kuester.com/hoa-covenant-enforcement/
  148. https://www.hopb.co/blog/simply-unenforceable-hoa-covenants-and-how-they-can-go-too-far
  149. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3375&context=vlr
  150. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2044&context=ulj
  151. https://property.jotwell.com/states-may-do-away-with-single-family-zoning-but-what-about-the-covenants/
  152. https://www.housing-critical.com/data/USR_057_DEFAULT/Correlation_of_Homeowners_Associations_and_Inferior_Property_Value_Appreciation.pdf
  153. https://le.uwpress.org/content/82/4/500.full.pdf?ck=nck&cited-by=yes&legid=wple%3B82/4/500
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.