West Alameda Heights Homeowners Ass'n v. Board of County Commissioners
1969 Colo. LEXIS 594, 458 P.2d 253, 169 Colo. 491 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Changes in the character of the area outside a subdivision, such as increased traffic and commercial development, will not justify nullifying a restrictive covenant for residential use within the subdivision if the subdivision itself has maintained its residential character and the covenant continues to provide a substantial benefit to the residents.
Facts:
- In 1947, George Newton developed the West Alameda Heights Subdivision and filed a plat containing protective covenants restricting most lots to 'Residential 1' use.
- The covenants were to remain in force until 1965 and then automatically extend for successive 10-year periods unless a majority of lot owners voted to amend them.
- No vote to amend the covenants has ever been held.
- The subdivision is large, with over 350 lots, and is almost fully developed with single-family residences, maintaining its intended residential character.
- The areas outside the subdivision, particularly along the bordering Wadsworth Boulevard and West Alameda Avenue, have experienced extensive commercial development and have become major four-lane highways.
- George Newton, the original developer who still owned several lots fronting West Alameda Avenue, applied to have his property re-zoned to permit the construction of a Safeway store and a Woolco Department Store.
- Homeowners in the subdivision had invested in their properties in reliance on the protective covenants.
Procedural Posture:
- West Alameda Heights Homeowners Association and individual homeowners sued George Newton, F. W. Woolworth Company, and Safeway Stores, Inc. in the Jefferson County district court (trial court).
- The plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent the construction of commercial facilities on property subject to residential-only covenants.
- The trial court found that the character of the neighborhood had changed substantially, the land was no longer suitable for residential use, and enforcing the covenants would be inequitable.
- Following its findings, the trial court entered a decree declaring the restrictive covenants null and void as to the subject property.
- The West Alameda Heights Homeowners Association (appellants) appealed the trial court's decree to the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a significant change in the character of the area surrounding a subdivision from residential to commercial render a restrictive covenant for residential-only use on lots within the subdivision unenforceable?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Day
No. A restrictive covenant for residential use remains enforceable despite significant commercial development outside the restricted area. The trial court misapplied the law by focusing on changes and developments outside of and beyond the subdivision itself. The correct test for determining if a covenant's purpose has ended is to analyze the development and changes within the covenanted subdivision. Here, the subdivision has maintained its residential character precisely because of the covenants, and the original purpose of the restrictions is still being accomplished. Furthermore, contrary to the trial court's finding, the homeowners would suffer damage from the covenant's removal through increased traffic, noise, and decreased property values. Allowing commercial encroachment on one lot would create a 'slippery slope,' eventually destroying the residential character of the entire area.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the durability of restrictive covenants and protects the reliance interests of homeowners in planned communities. It establishes that the 'changed conditions' doctrine is narrowly applied, focusing on changes internal to the restricted area rather than external pressures from surrounding development. The ruling sets a strong precedent that prevents the gradual erosion of residential subdivisions by commercial encroachment, even when the market value of border lots for commercial use is significantly higher. This provides stability for homeowners and makes it more difficult for developers to dismantle established land-use restrictions piecemeal.
