## Facts

- Two residential subdivisions in Woodside, California were created with recorded declarations of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) limiting lots to “residential purposes” and regulating animals.
- Jared and Anne Anderson purchased two adjacent parcels, one in each subdivision.
- The CC&Rs were properly recorded, but were not expressly referenced in any deed in the Andersons’ chain of title.
- Subdivision maps referenced CC&Rs, and the Andersons’ preliminary title reports listed the CC&Rs.
- The Andersons obtained a conditional use permit to plant and harvest grapes, operate a winery, and keep llamas.
- A homeowners association and neighboring owners sued to enjoin the vineyard/winery and animal keeping as violations of the CC&Rs.
- The trial court granted summary adjudication for the Andersons, concluding the CC&Rs were unenforceable because they were not referenced in the Andersons’ chain of title; plaintiffs dismissed a remaining nuisance claim without prejudice.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed on the same theory (no enforceable covenant/servitude without deed-chain notice).

## Issues

1. Whether recorded subdivision CC&Rs, omitted from the purchaser’s deed chain, may nonetheless be enforced against the purchaser as equitable servitudes.
2. Whether recording of the CC&Rs, subdivision map references, and preliminary title reports can supply constructive or inquiry notice sufficient to bind a subsequent purchaser.
3. Whether equitable servitude doctrine permits enforcement of a common-plan subdivision scheme even when technical requirements for covenants running with the land are not met.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held the CC&Rs were enforceable against the Andersons as equitable servitudes notwithstanding the lack of deed references.
- The Court concluded the Andersons had at least inquiry notice (and the recorded documents supported constructive notice) of a common plan of restrictions applicable to the subdivisions.

## Legal Principles

- Mutual subdivision restrictions created as part of a common plan may be enforced as equitable servitudes against later purchasers when the purchaser has actual, constructive, or inquiry notice of the restrictions.
- Proper recording can provide constructive notice of CC&Rs even if a subsequent grant deed fails to mention them.
- Information that reasonably alerts a purchaser to the existence of restrictions (including preliminary title reports and subdivision map references) can create inquiry notice and a duty to investigate.
- Equitable servitude enforcement may apply even when formal or technical elements required for covenants running with the land are absent, so long as a common plan and notice are shown.

## Conclusion

The court held that recorded CC&Rs implementing a common subdivision plan can bind later purchasers as equitable servitudes despite omission from the deed chain, where the purchasers had constructive or inquiry notice of the restrictions, and it remanded for further proceedings consistent with that holding.


Citizens for Covenant Compliance v. Anderson, 12 Cal. 4th 345 (Cal. 1995)