Western Land Co. v. Truskolaski
495 P.2d 624, 88 Nev. 200 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Restrictive covenants remain enforceable despite significant commercial development and increased traffic in the surrounding area, as long as the covenants continue to be of substantial value to the homeowners and the residential character of the restricted subdivision itself has not been thwarted.
Facts:
- In 1941, the appellant, Western Land Co., Ltd., subdivided a 40-acre development named Southland Heights.
- At the time of subdivision, the appellant subjected the entire 40 acres to restrictive covenants limiting the property to single-family dwellings and prohibiting any form of commercial business.
- Initially, the subdivision was outside Reno city limits, surrounded by residential and agricultural land with minimal commercial activity.
- Over the next several decades, the area surrounding the subdivision changed dramatically; Reno's population grew, commercial centers were built nearby, and an adjacent road, Plumb Lane, was widened into a major four-lane arterial boulevard with heavy traffic.
- Despite these external changes, the Southland Heights subdivision itself remained a desirable residential area with low internal traffic density, well-maintained homes, and a safe environment.
- The appellant sought to construct a shopping center on a 3.5-acre parcel within the subdivision, contrary to the covenants it originally created.
Procedural Posture:
- Homeowners in the Southland Heights Subdivision (respondents) brought an action against the developer, Western Land Co., Ltd. (appellant), in the district court, which is the trial court.
- The homeowners sought an injunction to prevent the appellant from constructing a shopping center on a parcel within the subdivision.
- The district court held that the restrictive covenants were enforceable and granted the injunction, prohibiting the appellant from using the land for commercial purposes.
- The developer, as the appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Nevada.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do changed conditions in the area surrounding a subdivision, such as increased traffic and commercial development, render restrictive covenants limiting the land to single-family residential use unenforceable when the subdivision itself retains its residential character and the covenants remain of substantial value to the homeowners?
Opinions:
Majority - Batjer, J.
No, such changed conditions do not render the restrictive covenants unenforceable. Restrictive covenants will be enforced as long as their original purpose can still be accomplished and a substantial benefit inures to the restricted area from their enforcement. The court reasoned that although the vicinity had seen increased traffic and commercialization, these changes were external to the subdivision. Inside the subdivision, the single-family residential character had not been adversely affected, and the homeowners continued to receive the real and substantial value of a quiet, safe, and attractive neighborhood, which was the original purpose of the restrictions. The fact that the property might be more valuable for commercial use is not sufficient to nullify covenants that still provide a significant benefit to the residents.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the durability of restrictive covenants under the 'changed conditions' doctrine. It establishes that courts should prioritize the conditions within the restricted tract itself, rather than focusing on changes in the surrounding, unrestricted area. The ruling sets a high bar for invalidating such covenants, requiring a showing that their original purpose has been completely frustrated and that they no longer offer substantial value to the beneficiaries. This protects homeowners' reliance on restrictive covenants and limits the ability of developers or landowners to escape restrictions simply because of nearby urban growth or the potential for greater economic gain.
Unlock the full brief for Western Land Co. v. Truskolaski