166 thoughts on “Restrictive covenants on property”
I have owned a freehold detached house on a double plot for the last 25 years. I lived in it for 20 years and now its been rented for the last 5 years. There is a covenant that says that I cannot build a house on the second plot. In your previous comments you mentioned that a indemnity insurance should be ok if the purchaser is ok with it. I plan to build a second house on the second plot. I was thinking of splitting the title deeds as there would be two houses. Does this remove the covenant as its a new title ?
Splitting land which is subject to a restrictive covenant would not generally dispose of it. Broadly, just because ownership of the land now vests in more than one person because it has been split does not mean that the restriction is not still needed to protect against a particular circumstance or has become obsolete.
It is necessary to consider the wording of the restrictive covenant and understand what it was intended to protect at the time it was granted before an assessment of its continued ability to be enforced by anyone can be undertaken.
If a restrictive covenant was placed on a piece of land by the housebuilders, in this case not to build any other buildings, would the neighbours be able to enforce this. The property was built in the 1970’s and the original housebuilder has been bought out since.
Assuming that they didn’t have an issue with the removal of the covenant, would the neighbours be able to block this, or enforce it?
We can only provide general guidance and without seeing the precise wording of any restrictive covenant and understanding who it intended to benefit (which is sometimes clear for the wording itself), we cannot really say the extent to which a neighbouring land owner might be able to enforce the restrictive covenant.
On the assumption that the restriction was entered with a view to protecting other owners from excessive buildings being constructed, then arguably they would be entitled to enforce the restrictive covenant. However, sometimes developers will impose restrictive covenants on properties that they sell in order to protect their own position. For example, it would not be uncommon for a developer to restrict a buyer’s right to make changes to the property for a period of time. The premise behind such a restriction might be to protect the look and feel of a new development so as to ensure that full value of the properties is realised as the developer sells them.
Understanding what it is that any restrictive covenant is seeking to protect as at the date it was granted is key to assessing the continued enforceability of it and who has the benefit of it. Just because an original covenantee dies, is bought out or otherwise cannot be located is not generally relevant to matters. Once granted, the persons with the benefit of the restrictive covenant from time to time have the right to enforce it. A restrictive covenant attaches to land, and not individuals or companies that own that land.
Hello, I am just going through planning to build a house for myself that is situated between my parents house and a neighbouring property (the land belongs to my parents). On searches with the land registry a covenant has come up that was imposed by the local council in 1983 preventing the erection of a dwelling on the land. There is no real reason why a house can’t be built on it but is this unusual for councils to come along and place covenants on plots of land? Could this be a kind of green belt covenant? Any help is greatly appreciated
It is not unusual for the owner of a larger piece of land to impose a restriction on the number of dwellings that can be constructed on a part of the land that they are selling. In fact this is probably one of the more common restrictive covenants that we see.
Supporting Farleigh Hospice | Limited Places Available We’re delighted to announce that Cunningtons is once again partnering with Farleigh Hospice for the annual Make a Will charity campaign this September! What We’re Offering ✅ Completely FREE Will preparation by our qualified solicitors;✅ Professional legal advice and guidance on making your Will; and of course,✅ Support […]
Planning for the future as we get older is a vital part of life – that’s why many of us provide for ourselves with pensions and Wills. However, one of the most important tools available to us is often neglected: Lasting Powers of Attorney. According to CanadaLife UK, 78% of UK adults don’t have a […]
Cunningtons help with "Your Legal Journey Through Life". We cover key areas: your first home, your relationships and family law, then growing families, employment matters, dispute resolutions, property investments, and planning your estate. We focus on continuity, trust, understanding clients, and personal service by offering the same legal team throughout life.
I have owned a freehold detached house on a double plot for the last 25 years. I lived in it for 20 years and now its been rented for the last 5 years. There is a covenant that says that I cannot build a house on the second plot. In your previous comments you mentioned that a indemnity insurance should be ok if the purchaser is ok with it. I plan to build a second house on the second plot. I was thinking of splitting the title deeds as there would be two houses. Does this remove the covenant as its a new title ?
Thank you for your comment.
Splitting land which is subject to a restrictive covenant would not generally dispose of it. Broadly, just because ownership of the land now vests in more than one person because it has been split does not mean that the restriction is not still needed to protect against a particular circumstance or has become obsolete.
It is necessary to consider the wording of the restrictive covenant and understand what it was intended to protect at the time it was granted before an assessment of its continued ability to be enforced by anyone can be undertaken.
If a restrictive covenant was placed on a piece of land by the housebuilders, in this case not to build any other buildings, would the neighbours be able to enforce this. The property was built in the 1970’s and the original housebuilder has been bought out since.
Assuming that they didn’t have an issue with the removal of the covenant, would the neighbours be able to block this, or enforce it?
Thank you for your comment.
We can only provide general guidance and without seeing the precise wording of any restrictive covenant and understanding who it intended to benefit (which is sometimes clear for the wording itself), we cannot really say the extent to which a neighbouring land owner might be able to enforce the restrictive covenant.
On the assumption that the restriction was entered with a view to protecting other owners from excessive buildings being constructed, then arguably they would be entitled to enforce the restrictive covenant. However, sometimes developers will impose restrictive covenants on properties that they sell in order to protect their own position. For example, it would not be uncommon for a developer to restrict a buyer’s right to make changes to the property for a period of time. The premise behind such a restriction might be to protect the look and feel of a new development so as to ensure that full value of the properties is realised as the developer sells them.
Understanding what it is that any restrictive covenant is seeking to protect as at the date it was granted is key to assessing the continued enforceability of it and who has the benefit of it. Just because an original covenantee dies, is bought out or otherwise cannot be located is not generally relevant to matters. Once granted, the persons with the benefit of the restrictive covenant from time to time have the right to enforce it. A restrictive covenant attaches to land, and not individuals or companies that own that land.
Hello, I am just going through planning to build a house for myself that is situated between my parents house and a neighbouring property (the land belongs to my parents). On searches with the land registry a covenant has come up that was imposed by the local council in 1983 preventing the erection of a dwelling on the land. There is no real reason why a house can’t be built on it but is this unusual for councils to come along and place covenants on plots of land?
Could this be a kind of green belt covenant?
Any help is greatly appreciated
Thank you for your comment.
It is not unusual for the owner of a larger piece of land to impose a restriction on the number of dwellings that can be constructed on a part of the land that they are selling. In fact this is probably one of the more common restrictive covenants that we see.