Western Lands v. Truskolaski

Supreme Court of Nevada · 1972 · Property

PropertyRestrictive covenantsChanged conditionsAbandonment and waiversingle-family residential restrictioncommercial use banchanged conditionssubstantial benefit

Facts

In 1941, Western Land subdivided a 40-acre tract known as Southland Heights and imposed restrictive covenants limiting the entire subdivision to single-family dwellings and forbidding any store, butcher shop, grocery, or mercantile business. By the time suit was brought, Reno had grown substantially, Plumb Lane had been widened into a four-lane arterial boulevard, traffic had increased, and commercial development had appeared outside the subdivision near the parcel. Inside Southland Heights, however, homeowners testified that the subdivision remained desirable for residential use, with low internal traffic, safe conditions for children, and well-kept homes. Western Land sought to build a supermarket on a 3.5-acre corner parcel within the subdivision and argued that the covenants were no longer enforceable because of changed conditions and alleged violations by homeowners.

Issue

Whether changed traffic patterns, nearby commercial development, zoning-related actions by the city council, greater commercial value of the parcel, and alleged past violations within the subdivision made it inequitable or improper to enforce the subdivision's restrictive covenants against commercial development. Also, whether the covenants had been abandoned or waived by violations within the subdivision.

Rule

Restrictive covenants will continue to be enforced despite changed conditions outside a subdivision if the single-family residential character of the neighborhood has not been adversely affected, the original purpose of the covenants has not been thwarted, and substantial benefit still inures to the restricted area from enforcement. Community violations amount to abandonment only when they are so general as to frustrate the original purpose of the agreement; zoning action does not override privately imposed restrictions; and greater value for commercial use alone does not justify relief from the covenants.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Boise, a 1950 declaration limits all lots in Willow Crest to single-family homes and bars retail businesses. Decades later, the roads bordering Willow Crest have become six-lane arterials, and restaurants and pharmacies now line the opposite side of those roads, but the interior streets remain quiet, the homes are well maintained, and families still use the neighborhood for ordinary residential living.

If the owner of a corner lot inside Willow Crest wants to build a small market and argues that the surrounding area has changed too much for the covenant to remain enforceable, how should a court rule?

Explanation. The majority rule is that restrictive covenants remain enforceable despite changed external conditions so long as the original residential purpose can still be accomplished and substantial benefit still inures to the restricted area. Heavy traffic and commercialization outside the subdivision are not enough by themselves when the interior remains suitable for single-family residential use.