## Facts

- In 1982, Horace Blood conveyed to the State of New Hampshire, through the New Hampshire Agricultural Lands Preservation Committee (ALPC), an agricultural-preservation restriction (APR) covering 103 acres of his farm property.
- The State paid $406,000 for the APR, and the restriction was recorded in the Merrimack County Registry of Deeds as a deed restriction running with the land.
- The APR aimed to keep the encumbered land predominantly in agricultural use and limited development inconsistent with that purpose.
- The APR included a provision stating that construction or placement of residential dwellings required the ALPC’s prior approval.
- In 1996, Steven Rattee acquired the property at a foreclosure sale with record notice that the land was subject to the APR and where it was recorded.
- Rattee sought to build a residence for himself on the restricted land and applied to the City of Concord for a building permit without first obtaining ALPC approval.
- The State informed Rattee that proceeding without ALPC approval would violate the APR, and the building permit was denied.
- Rattee argued that RSA 432:18, II (defining “agricultural preservation restriction”) recognizes an allowed category for “a dwelling used for family living by the landowner,” and that this statutory language made the APR’s prior-approval requirement invalid as applied to his home.
- Rattee also disputed the ALPC’s and superior court’s conclusion that the easterly and westerly portions of his holdings constituted a single APR “site,” limiting subdivision or severance without committee approval.
- The superior court denied Rattee’s request for permission to build and upheld the ALPC’s interpretation of the APR; Rattee appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court in consolidated proceedings.

## Issues

1. Whether RSA 432:18, II’s reference to a landowner’s dwelling invalidates or overrides an APR deed provision requiring prior ALPC approval before constructing a residence on restricted land.
2. Whether Rattee, as a successor owner with notice, is bound by the APR’s prior-approval requirement for residential construction.
3. Whether the ALPC reasonably interpreted the APR to treat separated portions of the property as a single “site,” restricting subdivision or severance without ALPC approval.

## Decision

- The New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld enforcement of the recorded APR against Rattee as a successor owner with notice.
- The court rejected Rattee’s argument that RSA 432:18, II created an automatic statutory exemption allowing him to build a residence without complying with the APR’s prior-approval provision.
- The court agreed that the ALPC could apply the APR’s approval mechanism to residential construction in order to protect the restriction’s agricultural-use purpose.
- The court agreed with the ALPC and the superior court that the APR treated the relevant land as a single “site,” limiting subdivision or severance absent committee approval.
- The court’s overall disposition was **affirmed in part and vacated in part**.

## Legal Principles

- A recorded agricultural-preservation restriction acquired for consideration is a real-property restriction that runs with the land and binds later purchasers who take with record notice.
- Statutory definitions describing what an agricultural-preservation restriction may limit do not necessarily create an unconditional right for a successor owner to build a landowner-occupied dwelling free of deed-based approval requirements.
- Where an APR’s text requires prior agency approval for residential construction, that mechanism is enforceable if consistent with the restriction’s agricultural-use purpose and the governing statute.
- An agricultural-preservation “site” may be treated as a unified area for purposes of the APR, and the APR may restrict subdivision or severance of portions of that site without agency approval.
- Courts may defer to a committee’s reasonable interpretation and application of an APR when tied to the instrument’s language and the statutory framework.

## Conclusion

In re Rattee held that a successor purchaser with notice remained bound by a recorded agricultural-preservation restriction requiring prior ALPC approval for residential construction, that RSA 432:18, II did not give the landowner an automatic right to build a home free from the APR’s approval process, and that the committee could treat separated portions of the property as a single APR site limiting subdivision absent approval; the Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part.


In re Rattee, 761 A.2d 1076 (2000)