## Facts

- A developer created a planned residential area along Rivermont Avenue near Lynchburg, Virginia.
- The developer adopted a resolution requiring a 20-foot building line (setback) for lots on a defined portion of the avenue and directed that deeds include a covenant implementing the restriction.
- The restriction was publicized to purchasers as part of a uniform plan intended to preserve the character of the avenue.
- Plaintiffs owned lots within the restricted area and took title through deeds containing the setback covenant.
- Defendant also owned a lot in the restricted area, with title derived from deeds containing the setback covenant, and operated a store building on the lot.
- Defendant extended the front of the store building toward the street so that part of the structure was located within the 20-foot setback area.
- Plaintiffs sued in equity to enforce the setback restriction and to compel removal of the encroaching portion of the building.

## Issues

1. Whether a setback covenant imposed by a common grantor as part of a general development plan creates reciprocal equitable servitudes enforceable by one lot owner against another.
2. Whether the setback covenant was intended to benefit all lots within the restricted area rather than only the original grantor.
3. Whether equity should deny injunctive relief because compliance would impose expense or hardship on the violating owner.

## Decision

- The circuit court granted plaintiffs injunctive relief and ordered removal of the portion of the building violating the setback covenant.
- The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia refused the defendant’s appeal, leaving the injunction and removal order in effect.
- The court treated the setback restriction as part of a general scheme creating mutual, reciprocal rights among owners of lots subject to the restriction.
- The court declined to withhold enforcement merely because compliance would be costly to the defendant.

## Legal Principles

- A uniform restrictive covenant imposed by a common grantor pursuant to a general development scheme, and incorporated into deeds, may create reciprocal negative easements or equitable servitudes enforceable in equity by lot owners against each other.
- Restrictions on land use are strictly construed and not extended by implication, but clear restrictions reflecting the parties’ intent will be enforced.
- Notice may be established through the covenant’s presence in the grantee’s chain of title, supporting enforcement against subsequent purchasers.
- Injunctive relief, including removal or alteration of nonconforming structures, is an appropriate remedy for violation of clear building-line restrictions when damages are inadequate and enforcement is not otherwise inequitable.

## Conclusion

The court upheld enforcement of a 20-foot setback covenant as a reciprocal equitable servitude arising from a common development plan and permitted injunctive relief requiring removal of a structure that encroached into the restricted building-line area, notwithstanding the violator’s expense.


Cheatham v. Taylor, 138 S.E. 545 (Va. 1927)