Citation. 88 Nev. 200, 495 P.2d 624, 1972 Nev.
Law Students: Don’t know your Studybuddy Pro login? Register here
Brief Fact Summary.
Subdivision of development outside of Reno, Nevada contained covenants restricting subdivision to single family dwellings and prohibited commercial development. These lots were subjected to the covenants in 1941 but since substantial changes have occurred affecting the character of the neighborhood since that time. D Homeowners brought suit to enjoin appellant, Western Land Co., from constructing a shopping center on land located within the subdivision.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
Where changes occurring have not been so great as to
Significant commercial development was shown in the vicinity of the subdivision including a major shopping center across from subdivision property. Traffic patterns had changed around the subdivision as population in the area had increased and major city artery passed through the area. Trial court found that within the subdivision the traffic density was low and resulted in a safe environment for children who live and play in the area. Testimony indicated the highest and best use of the land would be commercial. The city council had indicated a willingness to rezone for commercial purposes. Sporadic violations of the restrictions had occurred over the years.
Had the single-family character of the neighborhood been adversely affected so that the object and purposes of the restrictions had been thwarted, rendering them unenforceable?
Substantial evidence indicated the covenants continued to have real and substantial value to the residents of the subdivision and that there was not sufficient evidence that the object and purpose of the restrictions was thwarted.
Even if the property is more valuable for commercial purposes, substantial benefits still go to the restricted area by enforcing the restriction.
An ordinance could not override the privately-placed restrictions and a zoning change would not invalidate these restrictions.
Any other sporadic violations of the restrictions were distant and did not show a general consensus of the property owners to abandon or waive the restrictions.
Even though nearby roadways become heavily traveled, restrictive covenants are still enforceable unless the objects and purposes of the restrictions have been “thwarted.” Court points that in cases where there were many changes outside and within subdivision such that a property had no suitable economic use exception commercial purpose a finding would be supported that the restriction had been thwarted. Here, there was simply not sufficient change within the community and the homeowners would still benefit from the restriction.