## Facts

- A nonprofit corporation leased a house in the Four Hills Village subdivision in Albuquerque, New Mexico to operate a group home for four unrelated individuals with AIDS who required some in-home nursing care.
- The property was subject to a recorded restrictive covenant limiting each lot and dwelling to “single family residence purposes.”
- Neighboring homeowners observed increased traffic and visitor activity associated with the group home.
- The neighbors sued to enjoin operation, asserting that housing unrelated residents (and associated staff/visitors) was not a “single family residence” use and that the activity altered the neighborhood’s residential character.

## Issues

1. Whether a restrictive covenant limiting use to “single family residence purposes” bars a small group home for four unrelated individuals with AIDS.
2. Whether increased traffic and comings-and-goings associated with the group home renders the use nonresidential or otherwise violates the covenant.
3. Whether enforcing a restrictive, blood-or-legal-relation definition of “family” to prohibit the group home violates the Fair Housing Act, including via disparate impact and failure to make a reasonable accommodation for disability.

## Decision

- The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed the injunction.
- The court held the group home was a residential use that satisfied the covenant’s “single family residence” requirement.
- The court held traffic and related activity did not violate the covenant because the covenant did not expressly regulate traffic, parking, or similar impacts.
- The court held that enforcing the neighbors’ narrow definition of “family” to exclude the group home would violate the Fair Housing Act due to disparate impact on disabled persons (including persons with AIDS) and that a reasonable accommodation required nonenforcement against the home.
- The group home was permitted to continue operating.

## Legal Principles

- Restrictive covenants are strictly construed; ambiguities are resolved in favor of free use of land and against restraints not clearly stated.
- A small group home functioning as a dwelling—where residents live, sleep, and conduct ordinary daily life—constitutes a residential use even if supportive services are provided on-site.
- Courts will not read into a covenant limits on traffic, parking, or similar effects when such limits are not expressly stated.
- Under the Fair Housing Act, persons with AIDS qualify as disabled, and housing practices that exclude disability-related group living arrangements may be unlawful based on disparate impact even absent proof of discriminatory intent.
- The Fair Housing Act requires reasonable accommodations in rules or practices when necessary to afford disabled persons equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; in this context, reasonable accommodation may require refraining from enforcing a private covenant to exclude a qualifying group home.

## Conclusion

The court treated the four-resident AIDS group home as a permissible single-family residential use under a strictly construed covenant and held that enjoining it based on a narrow “family” definition would unlawfully deny equal housing opportunity under the Fair Housing Act, requiring accommodation through nonenforcement.


Hill v. Cmty. of Damien of Molokai, 121 N.M. 353, 911 P.2d 861 (N.M. 1996)