## Facts

- A Los Angeles residential tract (Hancock Park) was subdivided in 1923 under a general plan imposing uniform deed restrictions expiring January 1, 1970.
- Key restrictions required each lot to be used solely for a single, private residence and required each residence to front on a north-south street.
- Plaintiffs owned an unimproved corner lot at Wilshire Boulevard and Hudson Avenue; defendants owned other lots in the same restricted tract.
- Over time, Wilshire Boulevard became a heavily commercial corridor, while most of the tract remained developed with single-family residences and retained a high-end residential character.
- Plaintiffs presented expert testimony that their corner lot was not suitable for single-family residential use, had no sensible use if restricted, and was best used for a commercial building consistent with other Wilshire development.
- Plaintiffs’ expert also opined that a commercial building on the corner lot would not reduce tract home values or residential enjoyment and might buffer interior lots from Wilshire traffic noise.

## Issues

1. Under the changed-conditions doctrine, when may a court refuse to enforce tract-wide residential restrictive covenants as to a single lot affected by commercial encroachment?
2. Must the trial court expressly determine whether continued enforcement of the restriction would still confer a substantial benefit on other owners in the restricted tract before declaring the restriction unenforceable as to one lot?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that changed neighborhood conditions do not make deed restrictions unenforceable where the restrictions’ purposes are not obsolete and enforcement still benefits neighboring owners within the restricted area.
- The trial court’s findings focused on the plaintiffs’ hardship and lack of residential value for the corner lot, but did not include a necessary finding on whether enforcing the restriction on plaintiffs’ lot would provide a substantial benefit to other tract owners.
- Because that benefit-to-others issue had to be resolved before the dispute could be decided, the absence of a required finding compelled reversal.

## Legal Principles

- Restrictive covenants created as part of a general plan of development are enforceable by and against tract owners through reciprocal rights.
- The changed-conditions doctrine is equitable and limited; it requires more than showing that a particular parcel has become more valuable or practical for another use.
- A court should not deny enforcement of a restriction unless the restriction’s original purpose has become obsolete or enforcement no longer provides practical and substantial protection to the benefited land.
- In evaluating nonenforcement, courts must compare the hardship to the burdened owner with the remaining benefit to other owners, and must make explicit findings on the continued substantial benefit of enforcement to others.

## Conclusion

The appellate court rejected partial nullification of tract-wide residential restrictions based solely on commercial change at the tract’s edge and plaintiffs’ hardship, requiring a specific factual determination that enforcement would no longer substantially benefit other restricted lot owners before equitable nonenforcement could be granted.


Bolotin v. Rindge, 230 Cal. App. 2d 742 (Ct. App. 1964)