## Facts

- In 1923, a tract in what is now Hancock Park in Los Angeles was subdivided and subjected to deed restrictions requiring each lot to be used solely for single, private residences, with each residence fronting on a north–south street; the restrictions were to expire January 1, 1970. ()  
- Bolotin (plaintiff) owned an unimproved lot at the northeast corner of Wilshire Boulevard and Hudson Avenue within the restricted tract; Rindge and others (defendants) owned other lots in the same tract subject to the same restrictions. ()  
- All lots in the tract except four had been improved with single-family residences; the four unimproved lots included both Wilshire/Hudson corners and the two lots immediately north of them. ()  
- Over time, Wilshire Boulevard became heavily commercialized, and Bolotin sought to build a commercial building on his corner lot. ()  
- Bolotin sued for declaratory relief and to quiet title against the deed restrictions, arguing that changed conditions made the restrictions unenforceable; evidence showed the lot had no substantial value for residential use but high value (over $200,000) for commercial use, and the trial court found nonenforcement would not adversely affect other lots’ market value. ()  
- The trial court declared the restrictions unenforceable in part as to Bolotin’s lot, and the defendants appealed. ()  

## Issues

1. Do substantial changes in the character of the surrounding area render tract-wide deed restrictions limiting use to single-family residences unenforceable as to a corner lot fronting a now-commercial thoroughfare? ()  
2. Must a court determine whether enforcement of the restrictions will still benefit other property owners in the tract before declaring the restrictions unenforceable for changed conditions? ()  

## Decision

- The California District Court of Appeal held that changed conditions alone do not automatically render the deed restrictions unenforceable; the key inquiry is whether the restrictions’ purposes remain viable and enforcement will benefit neighboring owners. ()  
- The appellate court found it necessary to reverse because the trial court failed to make an essential finding on whether continued enforcement of the restrictions would confer a substantial benefit on other tract owners. ()  
- The judgment declaring the restrictions partially unenforceable was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s opinion. ()  

## Legal Principles

- Deed restrictions in a residential subdivision are not rendered unenforceable merely because surrounding property, including adjacent frontage, has become commercial; courts must assess whether the original purposes of the restrictions are obsolete. ()  
- If the restrictions’ purposes are not obsolete and their enforcement still benefits other lot owners in the tract, changed conditions do not justify terminating or ignoring the restrictions. ()  
- In actions seeking relief from subdivision-wide covenants based on changed neighborhood conditions, trial courts must make explicit findings on whether enforcement will provide real, substantial benefit to other owners before granting relief. ()  

## Conclusion

Bolotin v. Rindge clarifies that commercial encroachment along a tract’s border does not, by itself, nullify residential deed restrictions. Courts must evaluate whether the restrictions still serve their original purposes and confer substantial benefits on other tract owners; absent such findings, a judgment lifting restrictions cannot stand.


Bolotin v. Rindge, 41 Cal. Rptr. 376 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1964)